Devonshire Research Group, LLC
The Short Thesis for Allied Minds: ALM LN Equity
April 2017
Disclaimer
2
Devonshire Research Group, LLC (“Devonshire Research Group”) is an investment adviser to funds and accounts that are in the business of buying andselling securities and other financial instruments.
Devonshire Research Group clients currently have a net short position in the securities of the subject company covered herein (“Subject Company”).Devonshire Research Group clients will profit if the trading prices of Subject Company’s securities decline. Devonshire Research Group may change itsviews about or its investment positions in Subject Company at any time, for any reason or no reason. Devonshire Research Group may buy, sell, cover orotherwise change the form or substance of its Subject Company investment. Devonshire Research Group disclaims any obligation to notify the market ofany such changes.
The information and opinions expressed in this presentation (the “Presentation”) are based on publicly available information about Subject Company.Devonshire Research Group recognizes that there may be non-public information in the possession of Subject Company or others that could leadSubject Company or others to disagree with Devonshire Research Group’s analyses, conclusions and opinions. The Presentation expresses DevonshireResearch Group’s opinions, which are based upon publicly available information, inferences and deductions through its due diligence and analyticalprocess. To the best of its ability and belief, all information contained herein and in any oral communication is accurate and reliable, and has beenobtained from public sources Devonshire Research Group believes to be accurate and reliable, and who are not insiders or connected persons of thestock covered herein or who may otherwise owe any fiduciary duty or duty of confidentiality to Subject Company. However, such information ispresented “as is,” without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. Devonshire Research Group makes no representation, express or implied,as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any such information or with regard to the results to be obtained from its use.
The Presentation contains a very large measure of analysis and opinion and includes forward-looking statements, estimates, projections and opinionsprepared with respect to, among other things, Subject Company’s anticipated operating performance, access to capital markets, market conditions, cashflow, assets and liabilities. Such statements, estimates, projections and opinions may prove to be substantially inaccurate and are inherently subject tosignificant risks and uncertainties beyond Devonshire Research Group’s control. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice, andDevonshire Research Group does not undertake to update or supplement any reports or any of the information, analysis and opinion contained in them.
The Presentation is not investment advice or a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Except where otherwise indicated, thePresentation speaks as of the date hereof, and Devonshire Research Group undertakes no obligation to correct, update or revise the Presentation or tootherwise provide any additional materials. Devonshire Research Group also undertakes no commitment to take or refrain from taking any action withrespect to Subject Company or any other company.
As used herein, except to the extent the context otherwise requires, Devonshire Research Group includes its affiliates and its and their respectivepartners, directors, officers and employees.
Notice of investment interests
3
As of the publication date of this report, the Principals and Clients of Devonshire
Research Group LLC have a net short position in the securities of Allied Minds, PLC
(which include, but are not limited to: stock, put options, bonds, and swaps) and stand to
realize gains in the event that the price of the stock “ALM” declines over the long run, or
if investment sentiment improves the appeal of an expected decline in any of its
securities.
However, Devonshire recognizes that while the technology strategy of the Company
reflects a long term bearish outlook for Allied Minds, PLC’s security instruments, the
short term use of press release and public statements by executives of the Company may
suggest unpredictable short term volatility.
Principals and Clients of Devonshire Research Group LLC are short term volatility
oriented with a long term net short position across multiple security instruments.
On knowing when to quit
4
“If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit.
There's no point in being a damn fool about it.”
-W. C. Fields
News flash: events of April 5, 2017 are an irreversible short catalyst, with high likelihood of securities fraud and investor lawsuits to come
• In December of 2016, Allied Minds raised £64m from investors to “invest” in existing businesses – 3 months later, the $147m write-down nullifies this investment, and creates the perfect storm for investor lawsuits to come
• On April 5, 2017, Allied Minds announced the severing of funding to 7 subsidiaries, stating that that the failed ventures carried an estimated value of $147m (£118m); DRG calculates this write down includes over $115m invested directly into the companies
• The ventures discontinued included those that DRG considered to be among the highest upside, meaning the valuation of the combined residual entity is likely to continue to slide
• While other short callers – especially Kerrisdale – have singled out ALM as a short target, DRG believes that prior callers have misunderstood ALM’s business model, treating it through the lens of P&L and accounting scrutiny, rather than evaluating it as what it is: a publicly traded venture fund, or Public IP Company (PIPCO)
• ALM is the last of the PIPCO’s, each of which has suffered at the hands of the recent America Invents Act (AIA), which significantly reduced licensing as a viable business model
• Privately held venture companies with Limited Partners, would typically have their funding pulled and move to liquidation after 5+ years of failures; ALM’s public investors should hold ALM to the same standards
• Why ALM, a high risk venture fund, should have been permitted to collect pension and private individual investment, without the scrutiny of accredited or qualified investment, will likely trigger additional legal scrutinyin the coming months
• DRG believes there is a high likelihood for investor and/or securities lawsuits to follow in the coming months and years, as investors compare the slides and analyses to follow against the claims ALM management made during their capital raise in December of 2016
5
Questions DRG would encourage the board to ask of Allied Minds shareholders and executives
▪ Are you disappointed with the performance of your investment over the past few years?
▪ If the company’s risks and venture-based business model were truly appreciated by other investors, what drove the latest sell off? Is there a floor?
▪ Are you concerned that the business is misunderstood by public shareholders, and possibly, by it’s current investors as well? Do the many subsidiaries make it even more confusing to new investors?
▪ If ALM were a private venture fund, would investors have halted further investments in the fund, sold the fund’s assets to another firm, or perhaps liquidated the fund altogether?
▪ Is ALM trying to exit business ventures, like a normal venture fund might, and eventually close and liquidate its assets, or is it trying to survive and become a tech licensing company?
▪ Is it possible these two central business models are at odds with each other, and with the purpose and requirements of a publicly traded vehicle?
▪ Should the SEC allow companies like ALM to trade publicly, exposing retail investors to risks normally reserved only for accredited and / or qualified investors?
6
Executive Summary
Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company while conducting deep forensic financial accounting
▪ ALM is a publicly traded venture capital fund, and therefore suffers fundamental mark-to-market issues
▪ The business is predicated on the ability to monetize out-licensed IP from Universities
▪ Other true comparable companies include Public IP Companies (called PIPCOs)
▪ PIPCO’s have suffered tremendously following the American Invents Act, and the devaluation of licensing businesses
Allied Minds has failed, and continues to fail, at identifying and monetizing technology in a way that returns value to shareholders
▪ ALM has not generated any meaningful revenue from its subsidiaries and is overstating their valuations
▪ ALM's revenue multiple puts it on par with an early stage software company, not a mismanaged VC fund
▪ ALM’s management fees are higher than VC industry standards, despite not returning any winners
ALM’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not substantiate the company’s current high-flying stock price
▪ Despite claims that it is a “technology-driven” company, ALM has not patented as much as expected given its market cap
▪ ALM’s portfolio is not heavily cited by other industry players, signaling that the patents lack value
▪ A top-down analysis of ALM’s patent portfolio suggests that it is worth <$25 million
ALM’s subsidiaries lack the necessary IP to be disruptive in the markets they are attempting to enter
▪ The patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are vastly smaller than the portfolios of their competitors
▪ Some of the subsidiaries’ portfolios have already been damaged by inter partes review (IPR) attacks
▪ The market sizes for the technologies that ALM’s subsidiaries are pursuing are too small to warrant their valuation
7
On misunderstood, overly-complex business models
8
“If there is something in nature you don't understand, odds
are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your
understanding.”
-Nassim Taleb, Anti-Fragile
What is Allied Minds, and why is it trying to be two conflicting, contrasting business models at the same time?Business models should not be this difficult to describe
9
Allied Minds is a publicly traded exit-valuation driven venture fund, whose ventures
represent non-traditional, IP-centric cash-flow licensing opportunities
Identify University tech
that bears no licenses,
no business activity
Exclusively license that
University IP, place the
patents in a business
Attempt to build a
novel business,
centered around the IP
Sell services, products,
or license the
technology solutions to
others
Business Model 1: Traditional
VC-like business model
Business Model 2: Tech transfer,
licensing business model
Place investments in
companies, operate
them…
…make money by
exiting those
businesses one by one
Acquire exclusive IP
agreements covering
high tech…
…make money by
entering cash-flow
centric licensing
agreements
A core problem: is ALM
trying to exit businesses,
or enter into royalty
licenses?
A core problem: if this IP
was so great to begin with,
why did the inventor, owner,
university not pursue it?
Business Model 1: Traditional
VC-like business model
Publicly traded Venture Capital funds are a bad idea at all stages of the fund’s lifecycle; there are good reasons why most funds are private
10
Capitalization and
Investment
Portfolio
ManagementExit and Liquidation
Post-Exit
Management
Lifecycle of a typical standalone high tech venture fund
Deal flow and due
diligence management
Term sheet / legal and
investment
Manage successful
investments through
subsequent rounds
Write off unsuccessful
investments / terminate
funding
Manage value capture
from disappointing
investments
Operate “zombie fund”
until all positions
exited, liquidated
Participate in
subsequent rounds; exit
to future shareholders Manage and unwind
covenants, accounting,
legal obligations
Distribute profits and
performance fees,
reimburse mgmt. fees
Proprietary deal flow are closely
guarded sources of competitive
advantage
Private venture capital can hold
unprofitable investments for
years if their conviction differs
from the implied financials
If too many investments in a VC
fund are unsuccessful by years 5-7,
the fund is often shut down, rolled
into another fund, or converted to
a “zombie fund” with no ongoing
active mgmt.
A publicly traded VC is forced to
disclose and reveal its key
sources of deal flow publicly
Public VC companies must
constantly report mark-to-market
style accounting performance
Publicly traded funds are
incentivized to continue as a
going concern regardless of rate
of failure
Private distributions are simple
and tied to liquidity events, often
on a per-deal basis, then the
fund is dissolved
Public VC funds have no
obvious “kill-switch” to terminate
the going concern, even after
profitable liquidity events!
Pri
vate
Ad
van
tage
Pu
blic
Dis
adva
nta
ge
Sim
plifi
ed
VC
Flo
w C
har
t
Bloomberg’s list of comparable companies, and those identified as sector equivalents - are inaccurate and misleadingAnalysts, struggling to understand ALM’s business, placed it into the wrong sector
11
Stenprop Ltd
TISO Blackstar Group
Intermediate Capital
3I Group
Deutsche Beteil
Altamir
Gimv Nv
Partners Group Holding
Eurazeo
Brederode
Capman OYJ-B
Compagnie Lebon
MAS Real Estate
Mutares Ag
Touchstone Innovations
Groupe IDI
Allied Minds
STP SJ Equity
TBGR LN Equity
ICP LN Equity
III LN Equity
DBAN GR Equity
LTA FP Equity
GIMB BB Equity
PGHN SW Equity
RF FP Equity
BREB BB Equity
CAPMAN FH Equity
LBON FP Equity
MSP SJ Equity
MUX GR Equity
IVO LN Equity
IDIP FP Equity
ALM LN Equity
Asset Management
Asset Management
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Private Equity
Real Estate
Real Estate
Turnaround Firm
Venture Fund
Venture Fund
Venture Fund
Company Name Bloomberg Ticker Business Model
Much larger, diversified
across very different assets;
financial services
Significantly larger deal sizes,
financial leverage based
investments, later stage and
more mature companies and
deal flow
Completely different asset
class
Different business model
Only two other companies
properly serve as comps; they
are traditional VC funds
Misleading rationale
Because of the way many long-only asset managers and index funds rely on comp factors, ALM will
automatically receive fund flows due to its association with these larger, higher performing companies
But ALM shouldn’t be compared to private equity, it should be placed alongside other PIPCO’s – a depressed sector struggling to stay afloat
12
300
400
100
200
500
0
600
Touchstone Innovations
(IVO LN Equity)25
5
20
30
10
0
15
Groupe IDI
(IDIP FP Equity)
10
5
15
0
Inventergy Global, Inc.
(INVT US Equity)
10/2002 4/2017 1/2005 4/2017
3/2011 4/2017
1.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
0.5
0.0
MV Portfolios, Inc.
(MVPI US Equity)
3/2011 4/2017
20
5
15
10
0
On Track Innovations Ltd.
(OTIV US Equity)
11/2002 4/2017
40
15
30
25
5
35
10
0
20
SITO Mobile Ltd.
(SITO US Equity)
8/2008 4/2017
Blo
om
berg
/
An
alys
t “C
om
ps”
Bu
sin
ess
Mo
del
Bas
ed
Co
mp
s
The conclusion DRG would draw,
based on a comparison of the only
two pure “VC” funds in the
Bloomberg and Equity Analyst
stated indexes, is that ALM is in an
attractive sector of the market
The conclusion DRG would draw,
based on a comparison of ALM to
4 other companies with similar
business models of monetizing
out-licensed intellectual property,
is that ALM is in an unattractive
sector of the market
Executive Summary
• Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company and conducted deep forensic financial accounting
▪ ALM is a publicly traded venture capital fund, and therefore suffers fundamental mark-to-market issues
▪ The business is predicated on the ability to monetize out-licensed IP from Universities
▪ Other true comparable companies include Public IP Companies (called PIPCOs)
▪ PIPCO’s have suffered tremendously following the American Invents Act, and the devaluation of licensing businesses
• Allied Minds has failed, and continues to fail, at identifying and monetizing technology in a way that returns value to shareholders
▪ ALM has not generated any meaningful revenue from its subsidiaries and is overstating their valuations
▪ ALM's revenue multiple puts it on par with an early stage software company, not a mismanaged VC fund
▪ ALM’s management fees are higher than VC industry standards, despite not returning any winners
• ALM’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not substantiate the company’s current high-flying stock price
▪ Despite claims that it is a “technology-driven” company, ALM has not patented as much as expected given its market cap
▪ ALM’s portfolio is not heavily cited by other industry players, signaling that the patents lack value
▪ A top-down analysis of ALM’s patent portfolio suggests that it is worth <$25 million
• ALM’s subsidiaries lack the necessary IP to be disruptive in the markets they are attempting to enter
▪ The patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are vastly smaller than the portfolios of their competitors
▪ Some of the subsidiaries’ portfolios have already been damaged by inter partes review (IPR) attacks
▪ The market sizes for the technologies that ALM’s subsidiaries are pursuing are too small to warrant their valuation
13
ALM’s historically stated ownership values (aka ROI) for its subsidiaries do not appear to be anchored in financial logic – how, then, is this calculated?
14
2014 2015 2016E 2016@6
%
Change
- - - - N/A
- 7,591 - - N/A
5,722 11,752 7,726 3,863 -34%
7,350 1,506 13,834 6,917 819%
268 20,849 1,594 797 -92%
13,340 20,849 23,154 11,577 11%
29,670 10,845 -198 -198 -102%
121,000 121,000 N/A ? N/A
2014 2015 2016E 2016@6
%
Change
6,457 957 338 169 -95%
4,898 2,791 1,080 540 -61%
5,854 5,162 5,914 2,957 15%
184 217 224 112 3%
3 - - - N/A
4,476 7,213 6,880 3,440 -5%
8,547 6,467 12,054 6,027 86%
69,600 40,000 N/A ? N/A
2014 2015 2016E 2016@6
%
Change
1,258 2,343 2,234 1,117 -5%
518 1,134 12,230 715 978%
11,235 19,371 22,382 11,191 16%
14,661 37,240 37,026 18,513 -1%
51 373 1,900 950 409%
25,207 55,775 71,304 30,252 28%
18,759 10,259 10,044 5,022 -2%
297,400 424,800 N/A ? N/A
Revenue
Cost of Revenue
SG&A
R&D Expense
Finance Income / (Cost), Net
Loss for the Period
Net Assets
Stated Ownership Value
Spin Transfer Tech RF Biocidics
All Other
Subsidiaries
DRG Conclusion
and Attempts to
Rationalize
No improvement in revenue,
“run-away” R&D costs, losses
mounting, net assets halved, and
yet the stated ownership value
remains the same?
Revenue decrease was an
alarming 95%, signaling a collapse
of this business, the dominant
source of revenue in 2014, but
the stated ownership value was
decreased only a minor amount?
There was de minimis forecast
revenue growth between 2015 and
2016, a strong decrease in net
assets, and yet the cumulative
valuation of these was written up?
There is an alarming degree of creativity involved in the implied method of calculating ALM’s Group Subsidiary Ownership Adjusted Value (GSOAV)
Recently written off
Two of ALM’s subsidiaries mysteriously sky rocketed in stated value at the end of 2015 – coincidentally “buffering” recent write offs
15
ALM’s added two new subsidiaries, received $99.2mm in new financing and posted no change to Stated Ownership Value
ALM's Stated Ownership Value (in millions USD)
Rank Company 2014 2015 2016 Major Events from 2016
1 Spin Transfer Technologies $121.0 $121.0Unknown
impact
▪ Completed working prototpe of ST-MRAM
2 SciFluor Life Sciences $91.4 $91.3Unknown
impact
▪ Received FDA approval to enter Phase I/II for SF0166
3 Precision Biopsy $16.2 $61.8Unknown
impact
▪ Granted a new patent
4 Federated Wireless $9.1 $59.9Unknown
impact
▪ Submitted application to FDA for TRUS &
MR/Fusion enrollment
5 RF Biocidics Inc $69.6 $40.0Unknown
impact
▪ Raised $22mm in Series A funding
6 Optio Labs $32.8 $33.6Unknown
impact
▪ Entered alliance to build ecosystem for 3.5GHz band
7 Cephalogics $22.3 $22.9Unknown
impact
▪ APEX 85 received Almond Board of CA TERP
certification
8 Novare Pharmaceuticals $16.7 $16.8Unknown
impact
▪ No major announcements
9 CryoXtract Instruments $17.8 $12.6Unknown
impact
▪ No major announcements
10 Biotectix $11.7 $12.2Unknown
impact
▪ No major announcements
Other (13 companies) $79.4 $63.7Unknown
impact
▪ Formed 2 new subsidiaries
▪ Raised $99.2mm in capital, including $20mm debt
facility
Total $488.0 $535.8
Rece
ntl
y w
ritt
en
off
ALM is currently trading at a 250+ EV / Rev multiple - far above any comparable across the many industries it participates
16
Key financials across Allied Minds Comps (EV in millions USD)
Despite recent sell-off, Allied Minds continues trading like a highly speculative, early stage software company — not a mid-stage investment fund with a poor track record
Biotechnology
2
Software
5
Pharmaceuticals
3
Semiconductors
6
Technology Hardware / Storage
7Hedge Funds / VCs / PEs /
Investment Firms
8
Medical Devices
4
Life Sciences
1
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Luminex 270.6 772.4 2.9
Neogenomics 244.1 877.0 3.6
Albany
Molec. 570.5 1393.6 2.4
Clinigen 504.3 1010.3 2.0
Syngene 169.3 1144.1 6.8
Cambrex 490.6 1709.8 3.5
Tecan 514.0 1572.2 3.1
Average 394.8 1211.3 3.1
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8
Note: sourced from Bloomberg; all comps have TEVs between $500M and $1.5B
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Amicogen 59.5 364.3 6.1
Genus 576.1 1,480.8 2.6
Repligen 104.5 996.6 9.5
Seegene 63.5 727.1 11.4
Biotest 612.2 941.5 1.5
Vitrolife 100.2 907.8 9.1
Takara Bio 247.8 1,384.4 5.6
Average 252.0 971.8 3.9
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Binex 70.2 440.9 6.3
Sequent Sci. 97.0 574.3 5.9
Searle Co. 108.2 641.1 5.9
Corcept Ther. 81.3 781.4 9.6
Supernus 215.0 1,100.4 5.1
Towa Pharma 684.6 979.0 1.4
Genomma 623.8 1,350.9 2.2
Average 268.6 838.3 3.1
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Boditech Med 47.4 349.5 7.37
Lifetech Sci. 53.1 728.6 13.71
Natus Medical 381.9 1038.1 2.72
Cynosure 433.5 862.0 1.99
Ion Bean
Appl.363.9 1260.1 3.46
Truking Tech 154.4 1095.5 7.09
Average 239.1 888.9 3.72
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Sinosoft Tech 78.1 351.4 4.50
Linx SA 143.1 718.6 5.02
TiVO 649.1 3045.4 4.69
Gigamon 310.9 1395.4 4.49
Capcom 642.1 1285.9 2.00
Zynga 741.4 3419.1 4.61
Average 427.5 1702.6 3.98
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
NuFlare Tech 369.1 438.3 1.19
Chipmos 570.6 714.4 1.25
Tower Semi. 1249.6 1729.9 1.38
Tessera 259.6 2629.6 10.13
Rambus 336.6 1483.2 4.41
Power Integ. 387.4 1734.1 4.48
Average 528.8 1454.9 2.75
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Primax
Electronics1996.2 462.6 0.23
Elecom 673.1 72270.0 107.36
Casetek 1016.7 634.5 0.62
Stratasys 672.5 606.8 0.90
Super Micro 2215.6 1353.2 0.61
3D Systems 633.0 1330.0 2.10
Average 1201.2 12776.2 10.64
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.79
Name Rev EV EV/Rev
Alaris Royalty 74.4 699.0 9.4
Tamburi
Investment 13.5 389.1 28.8
Triangle Cap. 113.7 1169.0 10.3
Och-ziff Cap. 770.4 2299.3 3.0
Fortress Inv. 1163.8 1985.7 1.7
Virtus Inv. 333.4 1008.5 3.0
Fiera Capital 259.9 1078.8 4.1
Average 389.9 1232.8 3.2
Allied Minds 3.3 880.4 266.8
Even compared to PIPCOs with EVs in excess of $100M, Allied Minds has the largest EV / Rev multiple
17
Company Ticker Licensing Business Model EV Revenue EV / Rev
Allied Minds PLC ALM LN Equity Hybrid product / IP 342 1.3 266.3
VirnetX Holding Corp VHC US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 144 1.6 92.9
AxoGen Inc AXGN US Equity Hybrid product / IP 353 11.4 30.9
Xperi Corp XPER US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 2,035 70.1 29.0
Rambus Inc RMBS US Equity Tech development 1,384 97.6 14.2
Murphy Oil Corp MUR US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 6,646 483.0 13.8
RWS Holdings PLC RWS LN Equity Tech development 808 65.1 12.4
TiVo Corp TIVO US Equity Tech development 2,832 252.3 11.2
Asure Software Inc ASUR US Equity Tech development 105 9.7 10.8
QUALCOMM Inc QCOM US Equity Hybrid product / IP 59,618 5,999.0 9.9
InterDigital Inc/PA IDCC US Equity Tech development 2,214 273.9 8.1
RPX Corp RPXC US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 510 81.8 6.2
Acacia Research Corp ACTG US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 117 22.0 5.3
Windstream Holdings Inc WIN US Equity Acquisition / Assertion 6,045 1,309.1 4.6
Wi-LAN Inc WILN US Equity Hybrid product / IP 127 30.2 4.2
Average 5552 580.5 34.7
19 failed subsidiaries; with no winners, how long can this last before ALM admits defeat?
18
0
3
6
9
12
2010 20162011 2012 20172013 2014 2015
▪ Glia Glen
▪ EndoScreen
▪ LifeScreen
▪ Purtein
▪ BA Logix
▪ AXI
▪ SaltCheck
▪ Illumasonix
▪ Precision
Augmented
Reality Works
Running Total of ALM’s Profitable Subsidiaries vs. Failed Subsidiaries
DRG believes that if ALM were a private fund, it’s Limited Partner’s would have seized control and shut the fund down; how much longer will public investors continue to support a failed investment model?
▪ SiEnergy
Systems
▪ Allied Minds
Devices
▪ Broadcast
Routing
Fountains
19
121199
663
0
5
10
15
20
Running
Total of
Failed
Subsidiaries
Running
Total of
Profitable
SubsidiariesZero Profitable Subsidiaries
▪ RF Biocidics
▪ Novare
Pharmaceuticals
ALM’s fee structure is more costly to investors than traditional “2 and 20” models; why pay a premium for a track record of failures?
19
Mgmt.
Fee
Success
Fee
Allied Minds’
“Phantom Plan”
Compensation Model
$52.6M in holding
company operating
expenses for 2016, or
22% of total invested
capital ($239.4M) in
current subsidiaries
10% of all liquidity
events*, after opex and
associated interest
payments on capital
invested (not to exceed
5%)
VS.
2% of capital raised
20% carry over hurdle
rate (typically 8%)
Proven VC
Compensation Model
1.5% of capital raised
15% carry over hurdle
rate (typically 8%)
Unproven VC
Compensation Model
Allied Minds’ management fee is higher than venture capital comps, even
though it has yet to return any value to shareholders
*According to ALM’s prospectus,
“liquidity events” can be IPOs, a sale of
substantially all of a subsidiary’s assets, a
sale of 2/3 of a subsidiary’s voting equity,
a merger, dividends above what would
be required to cover a subsidiaries tax
obligations, and a subsidiary liquidation
VS.
Executive Summary
20
Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company and conducted deep forensic financial accounting
▪ ALM is a publicly traded venture capital fund, and therefore suffers fundamental mark-to-market issues
▪ The business is predicated on the ability to monetize out-licensed IP from Universities
▪ Other true comparable companies include Public IP Companies (called PIPCOs)
▪ PIPCO’s have suffered tremendously following the American Invents Act, and the devaluation of licensing businesses
Allied Minds has failed, and continues to fail, at identifying and monetizing technology in a way that returns value to shareholders
▪ ALM has not generated any meaningful revenue from its subsidiaries and is overstating their valuations
▪ ALM's revenue multiple puts it on par with an early stage software company, not a mismanaged VC fund
▪ ALM’s management fees are higher than VC industry standards, despite not returning any winners
ALM’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not substantiate the company’s current high-flying stock price
▪ Despite claims that it is a “technology-driven” company, ALM has not patented as much as expected given its market cap
▪ ALM’s portfolio is not heavily cited by other industry players, signaling that the patents lack value
▪ A top-down analysis of ALM’s patent portfolio suggests that it is worth <$25 million
ALM’s subsidiaries lack the necessary IP to be disruptive in the markets they are attempting to enter
▪ The patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are vastly smaller than the portfolios of their competitors
▪ Some of the subsidiaries’ portfolios have already been damaged by inter partes review (IPR) attacks
▪ The market sizes for the technologies that ALM’s subsidiaries are pursuing are too small to warrant their valuation
ALM has only listed 34 US granted patents in its prospectus and annual reports; this is an incredibly small portfolio for a $~400M “technology driven” company
21
Count of US Granted Patents by Application Year for each ALM Subsidiary
Color-Coded by Method Found
1
66
3
7
111
4
1111
0
5
10
15
2007 200820051996 1997 19991998 20022000 2001 2010 201120092003 2004 20152014 201620122006 2013
US Granted Patents Referenced in ALM Prospectus & Annual Reports
34
Total
Sifting through the smoke and mirrors: below details the search strategies used to capture remaining hidden ALM patents
22
Allied Minds’ US Granted Patent Portfolio = 76
Note: Above search hedges used to generate patent counts in Thomson Innovation
Company Patent Seach Hedge
# of US
Grants
ABLS I(PA=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Yale) OR (Bristol*))) OR AS=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ
Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Yale) OR (Bristol*)))) AND IN=((Spiegel ADJ David) OR (Spiegel ADJ Dave) OR (Spiegel ADJ D));4
ABLS II (PA=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Harvard) OR (Bristol*))) OR AS=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ
Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (Harvard) OR (Bristol*)))) AND IN=(((Whitman ADJ Malcolm) OR (Whitman ADJ M)));2
ABLS III(PA=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (NYU) OR (New ADJ York ADJ University) OR (iBeCa*) OR (Bristol*))) OR AS=(((ABLS) OR (Allied-
Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Bristol ADJ Life ADJ Sciences) OR (Allied ADJ Mind*) OR (NYU) OR (New ADJ York ADJ University) OR (iBeCa*) OR (Bristol*)))) AND IN=(((Dasgupta ADJ R) OR (Dasgupta ADJ
Ramanuj)));
2
Biotectix(PA=((Biotectix)) OR AS=((Biotectix)) OR IN=(((Hedricks ADJ Jeff) OR (Hedricks ADJ J)) OR ((Richardson-Burns ADJ Sarah) OR (Richardson-Burns ADJ S)) OR ((Martin ADJ Dave) OR (Martin ADJ D)) OR ((Eichenberger ADJ M) OR
(Eichenberger ADJ Marc)) OR ((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)))) AND CTB=((polymer*));8
BridgeSat(PA=((BridgeSat*) OR (Bridge Sat*)) OR AS=((BridgeSat*) OR (Bridge Sat*)) OR IN=(((Mitlyng David) OR (Mitlying D)) OR ((Parvez Rizwan) OR (Parvez R)) OR ((Campagna Joseph) OR (Campagna Joe) OR (Campagna J)) OR ((Serafini John)
OR (Serafini J)))) AND CTB=(satel*);0
CephalogicsPA=(Cephalogic*) OR AS=(Cephalogic*) OR IN=(((Caputo ADJ Jeff) OR (Caputo ADJ J)) OR ((Herrig ADJ Russ) OR (Russ ADJ H)) OR ((Seshagiri ADJ Chandran) OR (Seshagiri ADJ C)) OR ((Hallacoglu ADJ Bertan) OR (Hallacoglu ADJ
B)) OR ((Oruganti ADJ Tanmayi) OR (Oruganti ADJ T)) OR ((Culver ADJ Joseph ADJ P) OR (Culver ADJ J ADJ P) OR (Culver ADJ Joe) OR (Culver ADJ Joseph) OR (Culver ADJ Joe ADJ P)));1
Cryoxtract(PA=(Cryoxtract*) OR AS=(Cryoxtract*) OR IN=(((de ADJ Dios ADJ Jorge) OR (Dios ADJ Jorge) OR (Dios ADJ J) OR (de ADJ Dios ADJ J)) OR ((Long ADJ Graham ADJ S) OR (Long ADJ G ADJ S) OR (Long ADJ Graham)) OR ((Basque
ADJ Todd) OR (Basque ADJ T)) OR ((Fraone ADJ Joe) OR (Fraone ADJ J)) OR ((Wilson ADJ Amy) OR (Wilson ADJ A)) OR ((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)))) AND CTB=(extract*);4
Federated Wireless(PA=((Federated ADJ Wire*) OR (FederatedWire*)) OR AS=((Federated ADJ Wire*) OR (FederatedWire*)) OR IN=(((CLANCY ADJ T ADJ C) OR (Clancy ADJ Charles) OR (Clancy ADJ T)) OR ((McGwier ADJ Bob) OR (McGwier ADJ
Robert) OR (McGwier ADJ R) OR (McGwier ADJ B) OR (McGwier ADJ Rob)) OR ((Reed ADJ Jeff ADJ H) OR (Reed ADJ J ADJ H) OR (Reed ADJ J) OR (Reed ADJ Jeff)) OR ((Mitola ADJ Joseph) OR (Mitola ADJ Joe) OR (Mitola ADJ
J)))) AND CTB=((wireless*));
1
Foreland
Technologies(PA=((Foreland ADJ Tech*) OR (ForelandTech)) OR AS=((Foreland ADJ Tech*) OR (ForelandTech)) OR IN=(((Espinal ADJ Dan) OR (Espinal ADJ D)) OR ((Serafini ADJ John) OR (Serafini ADJ J)) OR ((Brammer ADJ Robert) OR
(Brammer ADJ Rob) OR (Brammer ADJ R) OR (Brammer ADJ B) OR (Brammer ADJ Bob)) OR ((Jacobs ADJ Michael) OR (Jacobs ADJ M)))) AND CTB=((secur*) OR (cybersec*) OR (cyber ADJ security));0
HawkEye 360(PA=(((HawkEye ADJ 360) OR (HawkEye360) OR (Virginia ADJ Tech*))) OR AS=(((HawkEye ADJ 360) OR (HawkEye360) OR (Virginia ADJ Tech*))) OR IN=(((CLANCY ADJ T ADJ C) OR (Clancy ADJ Charles) OR (Clancy ADJ T)) OR
((McGwier ADJ Bob) OR (McGwier ADJ Robert) OR (McGwier ADJ R) OR (McGwier ADJ B) OR (McGwier ADJ Rob)))) AND CTB=((satellit*));0
Lux Cath(PA=((Lux ADJ Cath) OR (LuxCath)) OR AS=((Lux ADJ Cath) OR (LuxCath)) OR IN=(((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)) OR ((Armstrong ADJ K ADJ C)) OR ((Larson ADJ Cinnamon) OR (Larson ADJ C)) OR ((Ransbury ADJ
Terry) OR (Ransbury ADJ T)) OR ((Bower ADJ James) OR (Bower ADJ J)))) AND CTB=(cathet*);3
Optio Labs(PA=((Optio ADJ Labs) OR (OptioLabs)) OR AS=((Optio ADJ Labs) OR (OptioLabs)) OR IN=(((CLANCY ADJ T ADJ C) OR (Clancy ADJ Charles) OR (Clancy ADJ T)) OR (DOUGHERTY ADJ B) OR (HAMRICK ADJ D ADJ A) OR
(HANLIN ADJ R ADJ A) OR (SHARPE ADJ G ADJ G) OR (THOMPSON ADJ C ADJ M) OR (WHITE ADJ C ADJ J) OR (ZIENKIEWICZ ADJ K ADJ K))) AND CTB=((restrict* SAME access));1
Percipient Network(PA=(((Percipient ADJ Network*) OR (strongarm))) OR AS=(((Percipient ADJ Network*) OR (strongarm))) OR IN=(((O'Boyle Todd) OR (O'Boyle T)) OR ((DiCato Stephen) OR (DiCato Steve) OR (DiCato S)) OR ((Cloke Patrick) OR (Cloke
P) OR (Cloke Pat)) OR ((Serafini John) OR (Serafini J)))) AND CTB=((secur*));0
Precision Biopsy(PA=((Precision ADJ Biopsy)) OR AS=((Precision ADJ Biopsy)) OR IN=(((Tehrani ADJ Amir) OR (Tehrani ADJ A)) OR ((Werahera ADJ Priya) OR (Werahera ADJ P)) OR ((Nichols ADJ John) OR (Nichols ADJ J)) OR ((Amirana ADJ
Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)) OR ((Eichenberger ADJ Marc) OR (Eichenberger ADJ M)))) AND CTB=((biops*));1
ProGDermPA=((ProGDerm*) OR (Novare*) OR (LONDON ADJ HEALTH ADJ SCI ADJ CT ADJ RES ADJ INC)) AND IN=(turley);
2
RF Biocidics(PA=((RF ADJ Biocidic*)) OR AS=((RF ADJ Biocidic*)) OR IN=(((Phillips ADJ Charley) OR (Phillips ADJ C)) OR ((Yaghmaee ADJ Parastoo) OR (Yaghmaee ADJ P)) OR ((Lagunas-Solar ADJ Manuel ADJ C) OR (Lagunas-Solar ADJ M ADJ
C) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ M ADJ C) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ Manuel ADJ C) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ Manuel) OR (Lagunas ADJ Solar ADJ M) OR (Lagunas-Solar ADJ Manuel) OR (Lagunas-Solar ADJ M)))) AND
CTB=((RF) OR (radio*));
4
SciFluor Life
Sciences(PA=(SciFluor*) OR AS=(SciFluor*) OR IN=(((Amirana ADJ Omar) OR (Amirana ADJ O)) OR ((Edwards ADJ Scott) OR (Edwards ADJ S)) OR ((Askew ADJ Ben) OR (Askew ADJ B)) OR ((Ritter ADJ Tobias) OR (Ritter ADJ T)) OR
((Furuya ADJ Takeru) OR (Furuya ADJ T)))) AND CTB=((fluor*));10
Seamless Devices(PA=((Seamless ADJ Devices) OR (SeamlessDevices)) OR AS=((Seamless ADJ Devices) OR (SeamlessDevices)) OR IN=(((Yang ADJ Roger) OR (Yang ADJ R)) OR ((Kuppambatti ADJ Jayanth) OR (Kuppambatti ADJ J)) OR ((Kinget ADJ
Peter) OR (Kinget ADJ Pete) OR (Kinget ADJ P)) OR ((Hills ADJ Scott ADJ R) OR (Hills ADJ R ADJ S)) OR ((Elias ADJ Jeff) OR (Elias ADJ J)))) AND CTB=((amplifier*));9
SoundCure(PA=((SoundCure) OR (Sounds ADJ Cure) OR (UC ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ California ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ of ADJ California ADJ Davis)) OR AS=((SoundCure) OR (Sounds ADJ Cure) OR (UC ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ
California ADJ Davis) OR (Univ* ADJ of ADJ California ADJ Davis)) OR IN=(((Zeng ADJ Fan-Gang) OR (Zeng ADJ F ADJ G) OR (Zeng ADJ F-G)) OR ((Carroll ADJ Jeff) OR (Carroll ADJ J)))) AND CTB=(tinnitus);2
Spin Transfer Tech(PA=(Spin ADJ Transfer ADJ Tech*) OR AS=(Spin ADJ Transfer ADJ Tech*) OR IN=(((Hoberman ADJ Barry) OR (Hoberman ADJ B)) OR ((Pinarbasi ADJ Nustafa) OR (Pinarbasi ADJ N)) OR ((Levi ADJ Amitay) OR (Levi ADJ A) OR
(Levi ADJ Ami)) OR ((Kent ADJ Andrew) OR (Kent ADJ Andy) OR (Kent ADJ A)))) AND CTB=((MRAM) OR (Magnetoresistive ADJ random-access ADJ memory) OR (MTJ) OR (Magnetoresistive ADJ random ADJ access ADJ memory));18
Whitewood
(PA=(Whitewood ADJ Security*) OR AS=(Whitewood ADJ Security*) OR IN=(((Serafini ADJ John) OR (Serafini ADJ J)) OR ((Moulds ADJ Richard) OR (Moulds ADJ R) OR (Moulds ADJ Rick) OR (Moulds ADJ Rich)) OR ((Thoms ADJ
Matt) OR (Thoms ADJ M)) OR ((Hughes ADJ Richard) OR (Hughes ADJ R) OR (Hughes ADJ Rick) OR (Hughes ADJ Rich)) OR ((Nordholt ADJ Jane) OR (Nordholt ADJ J)) OR ((Newell ADJ Raymond ADJ T) OR (Newell ADJ R ADJ T)
OR (Newell ADJ Ray ADJ T) OR (Newell ADJ R) OR (Newell ADJ Raymond) OR (Newell ADJ Ray)) OR ((Pelprat ADJ Michael ADJ J) OR (Pelprat ADJ M ADJ J) OR (Pelprat ADJ Mike ADJ J) OR (Pelprat ADJ Michael) OR (Pelprat ADJ
M) OR (Pelprat ADJ Mike)) OR ((Rosiewicz ADJ Alex) OR (Rosiewicz ADJ A)) OR ((Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ Robert) OR (Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ Rob) OR (Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ R) OR (Van ADJ Rooyen ADJ Bob)) OR ((Potter ADJ Bruce)
OR (Potter ADJ B)))) AND CTB=(((random NEAR5 number) OR (encrypt* OR security)));
4
Rounding up, our generous estimate is that ALM has just 76 US granted patents across all subsidiaries
23
1 1 1 1
7
3
6 6
12
3 3
5
6
8
7
4
1
4
1
11 111
0
5
10
15
2009
11
6
2011
13
2012 2013
13
4
2008
4
20072006
3
2005
2
200420032002200120001999199819971996 2014 20152010 2016
10
US Granted Patents Found by DRG by Inventor / Assignee / Text Searching
US Granted Patents Referenced in ALM Prospectus & Annual Reports
34
42
76
Total
Count of US Granted Patents by Application Year for each ALM Subsidiary
Color-Coded by Method Found
These patents are scattered across multiple technology areas; in
other words, the portfolio is a mile wide and an inch thick
24
10
3
6
13
7
3
2
2
7
3
5
8
1
9
7
7
10
31
171415
982212111
Total US
Patents
Count of US Granted Patents by Application Year for each ALM Subsidiary
Subsidiary 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ABLS
ABLS I 1 1 3 2 3
ABLS II 1 2 1 1 2
ABLS III 1 1 2 1 1 1
AM Federal Innov.
Biotectix 2 1 2 1 2 1
BridgeSat 1
Cephalogics 1 3 4
Cryoextract 1 1 1 2
Federated iWireless 1 2
Foreland Tech
HawkEye 360
Lux Cath 1 3 3
Optio Labs 1 1
Percipient Network
Precision Biopsy 1 1
ProGDerm (Novare) 2 1
RF Biocidics 1 1 1 2 2
SciFluor 2 2 2 2 5
Seamless Devices
Sound Cure 1 1 2 1 1
Spin Transfer Tech 3
Whitewood 4 3 3
Portfolio valuation method: assuming every ALM US patent were successfully litigated and received the median patent damages remedy, the portfolio would generate only $36 million
25
Allied Minds’ Patent Portfolio Valuation
Median Damages Award for Successfully
Litigated US Patents
103 833k42%x x
% of US Patents that are Successfully
Litigated
=36.0M
1 2 3
Allied Mind’s Estimated US Patent
Counts
ALM describes itself as a “technology-driven” company, yet it has fewer patents than expected given its market capitalization
26
Average Patents Held by a Company across Market Cap Bands
Industry <$2B $2B to $10B >$10B
Aerospace/Defense Products & Services 35 158 7,280
Biotechnology 42 114 509
Chemicals - Major Diversified 57 1,860 6,175
Communication Equipment 89 675 14,159
Data Storage Devices 207 1,836 4,839
Drug Manufacturers - Other 40 364 4,425
Drugs - Generic 24 184 121
Information Technology Services 1,230 2,946 27,889
Medical Appliances & Equipment 104 448 2,753
Medical Instruments & Supplies 314 487 1,955
Medical Laboratories & Research 739 162 1,976
Networking & Communication Devices 264 2,225 797
Scientific & Technical Instruments 72 680 602
Semiconductor Equipment & Materials 262 1,706 3,552
Semiconductor - ICs and Memory Chips 337 1,358 6,728
Specialty Chemicals 116 471 1,546
Wireless Communications 42 10 17
Average 234 923 5,019
Given Allied Minds currently trades at a ~$400 million valuation, investors should expect its total US granted patent count to be well over 200; however, it’s far less
1 2 3
Across the top 50 most litigious IP industries, the weighted average percent of litigated patents that are found to be infringed is 42%
27
Percentage of Litigated US Granted Patents Deemed to be Infringed, by Industry
Litigation
Rank Industry
Total # of patents
litigated by public
companies
% of litigated
patents deemed
to be infringed
1 Drug Manufacturers - Other 157 71.97%
2 Business Services 85 27.06%
3 Drug Manufacturers - Major 81 59.26%
4 Communication Equipment 76 38.16%
5 Diversified Machinery 75 48.00%
6 Medical Appliances & Equip. 63 50.79%
7 Application Software 56 41.07%
8 Electronic Equipment 43 41.86%
9 Biotechnology 39 41.03%
10 Semiconductor - Broad Line 37 10.81%
11 Business Software & Services 35 17.14%
12 Semiconductor – ICs 34 47.06%
13 Medical Instruments & Supplies 31 38.71%
14 Industrial Electrical Equipment 31 38.71%
15 Semiconductor- Memory Chips 26 34.62%
16 Computer Based Systems 25 48.00%
17 Specialty Retail – Other 25 40.00%
18 Semiconductor Equipment 24 4.17%
19 Information Technology Services 22 22.73%
20 Data Storage Devices 22 31.82%
21 Medical Laboratories & Research 21 57.14%
22 Auto Parts 21 23.81%
23 Chemicals - Major Diversified 19 57.89%
24 Drugs - Generic 19 73.68%
25 Diversified Electronics 17 17.65%
Litigation
Rank Industry
Total # of patents
litigated by public
companies
% of litigated
patents deemed
to be infringed
26 Oil & Gas Equipment 16 43.75%
27 Personal Products 16 56.25%
28 Specialty Chemicals 15 0.00%
29 Processing Systems 15 0.00%
30 Air Services – Other 14 21.43%
31 Security Software & Services 14 0.00%
32 Computer Peripherals 13 46.15%
33 Electric Utilities 13 84.62%
34 Aerospace/Defense Products 12 50.00%
35 Technical & System Software 11 45.45%
36 Cleaning Products 10 50.00%
37 Property & Casualty Insur. 10 90.00%
38 Gaming Activities 10 0.00%
39 Drugs Wholesale 10 20.00%
40 Drug Stores 10 50.00%
41 Network & Comm. Devices 9 33.33%
42 Semiconductor – Specialized 8 12.50%
43 Apparel Stores 8 0.00%
44 Diversified Computer Sys. 8 25.00%
45 Internet Software & Services 8 50.00%
46 Agricultural Chemicals 7 57.14%
47 Auto Manufacturers – Major 7 71.43%
48 Research Services 7 0.00%
49 Machine Tools 6 33.33%
50 Multimedia & Graphics Soft. 6 0.00%
Total / Weighted Average 1,347 42.02%
1 2 3
A top-down valuation of ALM’s IP portfolio: median patent damage remedy for all US patent cases over the past decade is 833k
28
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Dam
age
Rem
edie
s
(in
millio
ns)
Median =
833k
Median Patent Damage Remedy’s Granted by US Courts, Last 10 Years
Source: Analysis of all damage remedies in the Docket Navigator database
2007
1 2 3
Simple math: the value of Allied Minds’ patent portfolio is likely less than $36M
29
Allied Minds’ Patent Portfolio Valuation
Median Damages Award for Successfully
Litigated US Patents
103 833k42%x x
% of US Patents that are Successfully
Litigated
=36.0M
1 2 3
Allied Mind’s Estimated US Patent
Counts
This top-down valuation model assumes that Allied Mind’s IP is seminal and core to established markets, which it is not
30
Forward citations are an indication of a patent portfolio’s value; the median Allied Minds patent trails the median patent across every industry comparable
Medical Appliances & Equipment
Wireless Communication
Networking & Comm. Devices
Data Storage Devices
Medical Instruments & Supplies
Scientific & Technical Instruments
Semiconductor Equip. & Materials
Semiconductor – ICs & Memory Chips
Information Technology Services
Communication Equipment
Biotechnology
Drugs – Generic
Aerospace / Defense Products & Services
Specialty Chemicals
Medical Laboratories & Research
Drug Manufacturers
Chemicals – Major Diversified
Allied Minds IP Portfolio
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Count of Forward Citations / Year by Industry for Industries Relevant to Allied Minds
Note: Sample size of patents across industries >600,000
Industries Relevant to ALM
ALM’s portfolio of US granted patents does not score well across a range of bibliometric factors, in addition to forward citations
31
Value Signal More = Better
Higher forward citations
per year imply increased
significance of a patent’s
technological relevance in
its domain
Allied Minds’ citation score
is carried by Spin
Transfer’s patent portfolio;
the median patent citation
count is extremely low
More = Better
Shorter independent
claim lengths imply
broader coverage in the
invention
Allied Minds’ patent
claims tend to be long
(+100 words); this is
often characteristic of
limited portfolios
Less = Better
Value Signal
Reasoning
00
2
4
6
8
10
12
Low
0.72
MaxMedianMean
0.17
11.5
Forward Citations /
Year
# of Independent
Claims / PatentShortest Independent
Claim Length14
33
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
MaxMedianMeanLow
681
106143
27
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
MeanLow Median Max
ALM US Granted
Patent Bibliometrics
Takeaway
More independent claims
implies that additional
implementations were
considered and patented,
potentially expanding the
scope of the patent
Allied Minds’ claims count is
also carried by Spin Transfer;
the median patent citation
count is not high
ALM’s US Granted Patent Portfolio Bibliometrics
Allied Minds (ALM) has a poorly understood business model – equity analysts have failed to identify proper comparable companies, and prior short sellers mislabeled the company and conducted deep forensic financial accounting
▪ ALM is a publicly traded venture capital fund, and therefore suffers fundamental mark-to-market issues
▪ The business is predicated on the ability to monetize out-licensed IP from Universities
▪ Other true comparable companies include Public IP Companies (called PIPCOs)
▪ PIPCO’s have suffered tremendously following the American Invents Act, and the devaluation of licensing businesses
Allied Minds has failed, and continues to fail, at identifying and monetizing technology in a way that returns value to shareholders
▪ ALM has not generated any meaningful revenue from its subsidiaries and is overstating their valuations
▪ ALM's revenue multiple puts it on par with an early stage software company, not a mismanaged VC fund
▪ ALM’s management fees are higher than VC industry standards, despite not returning any winners
ALM’s patent portfolio has limited value and does not substantiate the company’s current high-flying stock price
▪ Despite claims that it is a “technology-driven” company, ALM has not patented as much as expected given its market cap
▪ ALM’s portfolio is not heavily cited by other industry players, signaling that the patents lack value
▪ A top-down analysis of ALM’s patent portfolio suggests that it is worth <$25 million
ALM’s subsidiaries lack the necessary IP to be disruptive in the markets they are attempting to enter
▪ The patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are vastly smaller than the portfolios of their competitors
▪ Some of the subsidiaries’ portfolios have already been damaged by inter partes review (IPR) attacks
▪ The market sizes for the technologies that ALM’s subsidiaries are pursuing are too small to warrant their valuation
Executive Summary
32
None of ALM’s subsidiaries own more than 1% of the patents in the technology areas in which they participate
33
Value
Rank Subsidiaries
ALM's 2016 Stated
Ownership Value Industry US Grants
Total in Tech
Domain
% of Total Domain
Owned
1 Spin Transfer Tech $121.0 Inform. Tech. 3 5034 0.06%
2 SciFluor Life Sciences $91.3 Healthcare 13 18622 0.07%
3 Precision Biopsy $61.8 Healthcare 2 262 0.76%
4 Federated Wireless $59.9 Inform. Tech. 3 5830 0.05%
5 RF Biocidics $40.0 Inform. Tech. 7 1245 0.56%
6 Optio Labs $33.6 Inform. Tech. 2 5148 0.04%
7 Cephalogics $22.9 Healthcare 8 6598 0.12%
8 ProGDerm (d/b/a Novare) $16.8 Drug Development 3 6791 0.04%
9 CryoXtract Instruments $12.6 Healthcare 5 4001 0.12%
10 Biotectix $12.2 Industrial 9 2220 0.41%
- Seamless Devices Unspecified Inform. Tech. 0 1195 0.00%
- Whitewood Encryption Systems Unspecified Cyber Security 10 3862 0.26%
- ABLS I Unspecified Drug Development 10 9572 0.10%
- LuxCath Unspecified Healthcare 7 790 0.89%
- ABLS II Unspecified Drug Development 7 20428 0.03%
- SoundCure Unspecified Healthcare 6 1555 0.39%
- ABLS III (d/b/a iBeCa) Unspecified Drug Development 7 1110 0.63%
- Percipient Networks Unspecified Inform. Tech. 0 4521 0.00%
- BridgeSat Unspecified Inform. Tech. 1 1048 0.10%
- HawkEye 360 Unspecified Telecomm. 0 866 0.00%
Note: The collected ownership for the “unspecified” companies
amounts to $79.4M, according to the 2016 ALM semi-annual report
Rece
ntl
y w
ritt
en
off
Topline overview: the patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are inferior to their competitors
34
Spin Transfer
SciFluor Life SciencesPrecision Biopsy
Federated Wireless
HawkEye360 LuxCath Percipient Networks
Seamless Devices Whitewood Encryption
ABLS I ABLS II ABLS III BridgeSat
Patenting Trends of Top Assignees in ALM’s Subsidiaries’ Respective Technology Domains
Optio LabsSoundCure
ProGDerm (Novare) RF BiocidicsCryoExtract
CephalogicsBiotectix
Topline overview: the patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries are peripheral to their respective technology domains
35
ABLS I ABLS II ABLS III BridgeSat Federated Wireless
HawkEye360 LuxCath Percipient Networks Precision Biopsy SciFluor Life Sciences
Seamless Devices Spin Transfer Whitewood Encryption
Patent Assignee Network Diagrams of ALM’s Subsidiaries’ Respective Technology Domains
Optio Labs SoundCureCryoExtract
Biotectix Cephalogics
ProGDerm (Novare) RF Biocidics
Topline overview: the patent portfolios of ALM’s subsidiaries do not form effective chokepoints or bottlenecks in the industries in which they participateLicensing is unlikely a viable growth strategy for ALM’s intellectual property
36
ABLS I ABLS II ABLS III
Seamless Devices Spin Transfer Whitewood Encryption
SciFluor Life Sciences
Federated WirelessBridgeSat
HawkEye360 LuxCath Percipient Networks Precision Biopsy
Patent Text Clustering Maps of ALM’s Subsidiaries’ Respective Technology Domains
Optio Labs SoundCureCryoExtract
Biotectix Cephalogics
ProGDerm (Novare) RF Biocidics
2223
12
6
0
2
4
6
The average ALM subsidiary technology is pre-prototype phase; still
years of capital investment needed for de minimis return upside
37
Subsidiaries
TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9
Development Stage
as Reported by ALM
in its 2015 Annual
Report
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
Experimental
proof of
concept
Technology
validated in lab
Technology
validated in
relevant
environment
Technology
demonstrated
in relevant
environment
System
prototype
demonstration
in operational
environment
System
complete and
qualified
Actual system
proven in
operational
environment
ABLS I X Early Stage
ABLS II X Early Stage
ABLS III X Early Stage
Biotectix X Commercial Stage
BridgeSat X Early Stage
Cephalogics X Early Stage
CryoXtract X Commercial Stage
Federated Wireless X Early Stage
HawkEye 360 X Early Stage
Lux Cath X Early Stage
Optio Labs X Early Stage
Percipient Network X Early Stage
Precision Biopsy X Early Stage
ProGDerm (Novare) X Early Stage
RF Biocidics X Commercial Stage
SciFluor X Early Stage
Seamless Devices X Early Stage
Sound Cure X Commercial Stage
Spin Transfer Tech X Early Stage
Whitewood X Early Stage
TRL Average
Across
Subsidiaries
= 5.15
ALM’s Subsidiaries Tagged by Technology Readiness Levels (As Defined by the European Commission)
FDA Drug Development
Cycle Phase 1 (of 5)
FDA Drug Development
Cycle Phase 2 (of 5)
2223
12
6
0
2
4
6
On April 7th, ALM terminated ventures that DRG evaluated to be the most mature, commercial technologies, setting the clock back by years
38
Subsidiaries
TRL 1 TRL 2 TRL 3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9
Development Stage
as Reported by ALM
in its 2015 Annual
Report
Basic principles
observed
Technology
concept
formulated
Experimental
proof of
concept
Technology
validated in lab
Technology
validated in
relevant
environment
Technology
demonstrated
in relevant
environment
System
prototype
demonstration
in operational
environment
System
complete and
qualified
Actual system
proven in
operational
environment
ABLS I X Early Stage
ABLS II X Early Stage
ABLS III X Early Stage
Biotectix X Commercial Stage
BridgeSat X Early Stage
Cephalogics X Early Stage
CryoXtract X Commercial Stage
Federated Wireless X Early Stage
HawkEye 360 X Early Stage
Lux Cath X Early Stage
Optio Labs X Early Stage
Percipient Network X Early Stage
Precision Biopsy X Early Stage
ProGDerm (Novare) X Early Stage
RF Biocidics X Commercial Stage
SciFluor X Early Stage
Seamless Devices X Early Stage
Sound Cure X Commercial Stage
Spin Transfer Tech X Early Stage
Whitewood X Early Stage
TRL Average
Across
Subsidiaries
= 5.15
ALM’s Subsidiaries Tagged by Technology Readiness Levels (As Defined by the European Commission)
FDA Drug Development
Cycle Phase 1 (of 5)
FDA Drug Development
Cycle Phase 2 (of 5)
Spin Transfer is developing technology that will not be adopted for at least seven years, while facing competition from other tech
39
• Spin Transfer Technologies (STT) was founded in 2007 from patents owned by New York University
• Headquartered in Silicon Valley, California
• 50 FTE employees, including 23 PhD’s
• Product development stage
• STT is developing a form of MRAM computer memory
▪ Spin Transfer MRAM in and of itself is an improvement over current
Negative-AND (NAND) technology by passing current through a thick
magnetic layer so that it has more spin-up electrons than spin-down
Orthogonal Spin Transfer (OST): Magnetoresistive Random Access
Memory (MRAM) supposedly provides better performance / scalability
improvements over current
spin transfer MRAM
▪ OST-MRAM utilizes an
orthogonal orientation
between the polarizing
and free magnetic vectors
resulting in alternation of
magnetic orientations
▪ $107.3 million in total invested capital from Allied Minds, Invesco Asset
Mgmt and Woodford Investment Mgmt as of Dec 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 48.40% ownership interest
– Invested capital: $28.4 million
▪ STT’s portfolio contains an estimated 18 US granted patents
▪ Most of these patents have been granted in the past 5 years
▪ PTO cancelled several claims on US Patent No. 6,980,469 due to an IPR initiated by
a competitor
▪ Industry leaders do not anticipate this technology will be needed for memory
upgrades until 2023 [1]
▪ Industry leaders (such as Samsung and Toshiba) are pursing similar avenues of
research, and have larger R&D budgets to spend
▪ STT is developing one of many types of technology that could potentially address this
market
▪ STT, despite the R&D dollars invested, still lacks the infrastructure needed to
compete in this industry; other players have deeper wallets, fully functioning
fabrication facilities, and larger teams
OST-MRAM
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
Est. Profit S-Curve TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
7-10
Years
7(System prototype
demonstration in
operational
environment)
$50M
[1] Estimate made by Jim Handy from Objective Analysis, which specializes in coverage of the memory industry
Despite claiming to have a robust IP portfolio, Spin Transfer trails others in the MRAM industry in patenting volume
40
With an estimated 3 US granted patents, Spin Transfer does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
20
20
21
24
23
24
26
30
34
35
33
43
63
63
65
75
77
87
98
98
109
183
165
220
246
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MICRON TECH 0 0 0 0 1 18 42 36 32 26 20 10 7 10 0 3 14 5 3 8 11
IBM 2 2 9 1 7 3 12 21 17 9 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 24 6 13 34
SAMSUNG ELECT. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 14 10 3 11 10 7 11 4 19 21 13 29 20
QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 15 23 10 8 21 12 14 38
HEWLETT PACKARD 0 0 0 0 3 7 41 37 16 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INFINEON 0 0 0 1 1 28 16 17 9 8 5 1 1 0 2 1 4 3 0 0 1
AVALANCHE TECH. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 10 14 36 26 1 5
MAGIC TECHNOLOGIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 12 15 9 15 13 7 0 6 0 0 0
TOSHIBA EK 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 4 2 3 1 8 6 7 10 10 6 6 3 0
TAIWAN SEMICOND. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 8 10 6 6 1 3 4 9 10 5 2 2 4
MOTOROLA INC 6 7 11 7 7 8 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FREESCALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 8 11 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
HEADWAY TECH. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 3 6 2 1 9 5 5 10 5 1 0 4
EVERSPIN TECH. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 1 0 2 3 6 6 6 1 7
NEC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 7 7 6 2 1 2 0 0 0
KANG SEUNG H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 11 3 4 0 0 2 0
CROCUS TECHNOLOGY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 7 3 9 3 1 0 5
APPLIED SPINTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEAGATE 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 5 1 4 4 4 0 1 0 0
HEWLETT PACKARD 0 0 1 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GRANDIS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 1 4 2 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
HYNIX SEMIC. 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
HONEYWELL INT INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 3 1 0 1 2 0 5 0 1 0 0
KULA WITOLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 5 8 0 0 0 0
IND TECH RES INST 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Spin Transfer competes in a crowded space; there are many others positioned to benefit in the event of a market shift to MRAM
41
STT’s patents cover just one portion of the broader MRAM domain; there is a possibility that its portfolio is rendered valueless long term
42Note: Includes text fields from 2,209 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of STT’s Patents in the Context of the Broader
MRAM Domain
Denote Spin Transfer’s patents
Spin Transfer’s technology is just one of many competing early stage non-volatile random access memory technologies
Zoom Level
1Type of
Memory
2Memory
Family
3 Technology
Class
ROMNVRAM
Non-Volatile
nvSRAMCBRAM FeRAMMRAM 3D XPointSONOSDWMRRAM NRAM Millipede
Memory
FJG RAMFLASH SSD PRAM
Given the competition in NVRAM and STT’s small IP portfolio, it is highly unlikely that STT becomes the sole proprietor of the next universal memory system
4Technology
Version
Late Stage Early Stage
STT-RAM TAS-RAM VMRAM
Memory Types
43
Estimated Subsidiary Valuation
(in millions USD) Reasoning
ALM’s implied valuation of Spin Transfer is $250M: our optimistic estimate is that it is worth closer to $100M
44
ALM’s Implied
Valuation
($250M)*
Estimated Valuation
($95M, assuming equal
weighting across models)
*ALM states that it owns 48.4%, or a $121M stake, in Spin Transfer. Therefore the
implied valuation of Spin Transfer is $250M (or $121M / 0.484).
$0 $75 $150 $225 $300 $375
$150M+
Difference
NPV of
Future
Earnings
Liquidation
of Subsidiary
Assets
Comps
Analysis
STT has stated assets of $83M.
If it were to liquidate all of
these assets, even at a 20%
premium, it would generate
$100M
Samsung acquired Grandis, a
maker of MRAM with 62 patents,
for $76.6M in 2011 [2]; Rambus
acquired Unity Semiconductor, a
maker of non-volatile solid state
memory devices with 147 US
patents, for $35M 2012
STT has not generated any
revenues to date; but assuming it
generates a profit of $15M / yr.
[1] for the next 10 yrs. at a 3%
discount rate, the NPV of those
earnings is only $128M
[1] Earnings of $15M is based off an assumption that STT has a 10% chance
of generating $150M in profit / year
[2] Samsung mentions its purchase price of Grandis in its 2011 annual report
SciFluor uses fluorination to improve drug profiles - a method neither novel nor scalable to its “potential” billion dollar market
45
• SciFluor was founded in 2011 with technology licensed from Harvard University
• Headquartered in Cambridge, MA
• About 10 FTE employees
• A drug discovery company that develops and uses fluorination technologies to improve drug profiles; product development stage
▪ Idea of fluorine enhanced new chemical entities (NCEs) is neither novel nor practical
for commercialization according to industry experts and a paper written by Scifluor’s
founder in 2015
▪ SciFluor lacks the ability to quickly commercialize its technology at the scale it would
need to make a market impact
▪ Ongoing regulatory hurdles will be expensive
▪ SciFluor has limited IP in the space and faces extreme competition from other
pharma companies
▪ Creates new chemical entities (NCEs), which are fluorine-enhanced
improvements to existing chemical compounds
▪ SF0166: first lead development compound, designed to distribute Age-
related Macular Degeneration (AMD) treatment to the retina in high
concentrations; improvement in distribution on non-fluorinated version
▪ SF0034: an activator to suppress neuronal hyperexcitability that may be
a superior anti-epileptic drug. May also show benefits in treating other
diseases associated with hyperexcitability such as ALS
▪ Host of early stage development
in ophthalmology, neurology
fibrosis and inflammation
▪ $44.8 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 69.94% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $19.6 million
Fluorine Binding
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ SciFluor has an estimated 9 US granted patents
▪ These patents are not heavily cited by other industry players; citations are
typically an indicator of value
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Est. Profit S-Curve TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5-10
Years
3(System prototype
demonstration in
operational
environment)
$20M
SciFluor is attempting to enter a technology space that is already well established
46
With an estimated 13 US granted patents, SciFluor does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
40
40
45
45
49
53
58
58
59
62
63
64
65
72
83
83
91
230
183
151
131
134
139
113
101
Patent Trend | Total Counts
ASSIGNEE 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 39 16 12 9 11 22 40 19 18 6 20 3
BAYER AG 19 27 11 14 19 23 21 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 34
PFIZER 3 8 10 22 15 24 14 12 10 11 3 4 2 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 4
HOFFMANN LA ROCHE 7 6 7 4 3 13 5 12 10 15 11 12 5 13 4 0 3 3 2 4 10
SANOFI SA 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 7 19 18 34 10 16 22 9
MERCK SHARP & DOHME 2 10 8 7 2 4 5 4 4 6 5 11 14 14 11 5 4 3 5 7 7BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMA 2 1 3 13 14 15 16 29 5 7 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
ASTRAZENECA AB 0 2 1 2 11 7 12 7 14 14 3 7 5 3 2 3 3 1 3 1 0
BAYER IP GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 13 14 17 11 24 9 0 0
AVENTIS PHARMA GMBH 0 2 4 8 22 19 20 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DAIKIN IND LTD 1 0 3 1 2 6 10 6 5 6 5 6 6 3 6 5 3 3 0 6 6
SANOFI AVENTIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 8 9 11 13 15 8 0 2 0 0 0 0
MERCK & CO INC 0 6 2 4 6 1 3 4 6 8 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8
SCHERING AG 2 7 5 5 10 4 9 8 7 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP 6 11 2 4 4 4 13 5 3 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GLAXO GROUP LTD 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 4 8 6 8 9 7 3 7 1 3 0 1 0 1
GALDERMA RES & DEV 0 1 0 3 1 5 5 3 2 6 5 3 1 5 5 5 3 0 3 3 5SANOFI AVENTIS
DEUTSCHLAND 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 17 1 12 8 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
CANON KK 12 7 4 7 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 4 5SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
LAB 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 7 1 4 3 7 1 1 8 6
APPLIED MATERIALS INC 1 1 2 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 5 4 5
WARNER LAMBERT CO 3 5 3 5 8 2 5 6 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO
LTD 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 2 2 5 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 6 3
SANKYO CO 6 8 7 6 4 2 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HOECHST AG 11 15 3 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SciFluor’s patents fall outside of the core patenting networks, signaling a lack of portfolio value
47
SciFluor is on the periphery in its technology domain; market penetration expectations should be adjusted accordingly
48Note: Includes text fields from 7,066 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of SciFluor Life Sciences’ Patents in the Context of
the Broader Fluorinated Drug Domain
Denote SciFluor patents
Precision Biopsy has not been able to commercialize after eight years of operation
49
• Precision Biopsy was founded in 2008 in collaboration with professors from the University of Colorado
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• At least 12 FTE employees with 2 PhDs
• Developing a medical device platform to diagnose prostate cancer faster and more accurately than existing solutions; clinical trial phase
▪ Precision Biopsy claims to have a ‘strong IP portfolio’, but has just one patent despite
several applications since its founding in 2008
▪ Precision Biopsy commercialized a single product for 8 years of its operation
▪ The company completed product development, verification and validation testing of
ClariCore system in 2015, but has not made any material sales reported on ALMs
income statements
▪ Precision Biopsy will face strong competition in the medical device arena
▪ The company lacks the staffing to scale this product
▪ ClariCore System: a medical device platform that applies spectral
analysis during a biopsy, together with a proprietary algorithm, to
classify abnormalities in the prostate tissue
▪ Consists of a hand piece and console with integrated fiber optics that
enables real-time tissue classification, unlike the multiple
day histopathological analysis
▪ Intends to use only one or two core prostate tissue samples
(compared to the norm of 12 samples) by only sampling
tissue that is classified as suspicious
▪ $36.5 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 68.32% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $19.5 million
ClariCore
ConsoleClariCore Hand Piece
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ Precision Biopsy has an estimated 2 US granted patents
▪ The amount of patenting strongly trails competitors in this space
▪ The US granted patent is not strongly cited, compared to industry norms
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Est. Profit S-Curve TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
7-10
Years
7(System prototype
demonstration in
operational
environment)
$10M
Precision Biopsy is one of many players in the tissue classification via spectroscopy domain
50
With an estimated 2 US granted patents, Precision Biopsy does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
8
14
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
CHEMIMAGE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 0
UNIV TEXAS 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
MOMENTA
PHARMACEUTICALS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1
LUMIDIGM INC 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV PITTSBURGH 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WILSON ROBERT H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
UNIV OHIO STATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
UNIV MICHIGAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
STELLA JUDI L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
SIMEONE DIANE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
SCHEIMAN JAMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
RUBIO-DIAZ DANIEL EMILIO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
RODRIGUEZ-SAONA LUIS E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
MYCEK MARY-ANN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
MCKENNA BARBARA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
US ARMY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0
UNIV ILLINOIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
SPECTRASCIENCE INC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CORNELL RES FOUNDATION
INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CHANDRA MALAVIKA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
CA NAT RESEARCH COUNCIL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BUFFINGTON CHARLES A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
UNIV PENNSYLVANIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
ZHU XIANGPING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
US HEALTH 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Precision Biopsy does not have a highly central IP portfolio in its technology area, much less in other tissue classification domains
51
Precision Biopsy’s market penetration expectations should be tempered given its lack of control in this space
52Note: Includes text fields from 130 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Precision Biopsy’s Patents in the Context of the
Broader Spectroscopic Device Domain
Denote Precision Biopsy patents
Federated Wireless focuses on 3.5Ghz wireless infrastructure, an industry with not much to show today, and long time to profit
53
• Federated Wireless was founded in 2012 with scientists from Virginia Tech
• Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia
• At least 15 FTE employees, 6 of whom have Ph.Ds
• Develops cloud based wireless infrastructure for spectrum allocation, sharing and extension of access; pilot stage
▪ Focus on 3.5Ghz spectrum sharing may be overplayed since:
– Compatible devices are far from mass-marketable
– Cheaper options like Wifi exist for corporations
– Unclear whether bandwidth of focus will have reasonable mass adoption rates
▪ Raised $22 million in both internal and external equity financing 2015 to conclude
development and begin commercialization of product platform; still has not seen
material sales
▪ Awarded a piece of a grant with the Department of Defense, far outweighing ALM’s
valuation increase
▪ Joined CBRS Alliance to promote trials and attract potential pilot funding
▪ CINQ XP: A cloud based platform that provides access to shared
spectrum and allows real-time planning of wireless networks through
densification, extension, and cost reduction of field engineering
▪ SAS: proprietary Spectrum Access System (SAS) to allow licensed
sharing of spectrum through lower impact of exclusion zones during
network optimization
▪ $16.9 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 73.04% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $33.9 million
CINQ XP Interface SAS Spectrum Graphic
Company description
Technology overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ Federated Wireless has an estimated 1 US granted patent
▪ This is limited IP coverage, especially in a technology domain that will be driven by
standards bodies
IP Strength
Value Metrics
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10 Years2
(Technology concept
formulated)
$10M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Federated Wireless lack the IP necessary to compete in an industry driven standards bodies
54
Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ERICSSON TELEFON AB 1 3 7 3 3 6 2 2 3 4 1 9 8 6 19 19 33 27 10 0 0
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 6 2 13 11 8 10 12 6 11 7 1 0 0
NOKIA CORP 0 0 1 1 5 6 3 6 8 2 12 11 1 4 7 0 2 1 0 0 0
QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 4 7 11 9 9 7 8 3 0 0
LG ELECTRONICS INC 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 0 2 8 6 7 9 9 11 4 1 0
HUAWEI TECH CO LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 7 12 14 7 2 0
KOREA ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 5 5 2 7 9 4 5 5 1 0 0
INTEL CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 3 5 16 12 0 0 0
NTT DOCOMO INC 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 7 4 1 2 3 2 1 4 4 2 0 0 0
SONY CORP 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 3 7 0 0 0
INTERDIGITAL TECH 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 7 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 5 4 1 4 6 2 0 0 0
AT & T MOBILITY II LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 2 1 5 4 3 0 0
FUJITSU LTD 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 4 2 4 1 2 3 3 0 0 0
ALCATEL LUCENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 5 2 4 0 1 3 4 1 0 0 0
ZTE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 6 7 3 2 1 0
MOTOROLA INC 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BLACKBERRY LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 5 7 2 0 0
NEC CORP 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0
SPRINT SPECTRUM LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 0
NORTEL NETWORKS LTD 0 0 0 5 2 1 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SPECTRUM BRIDGE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 2 2 0 1 0 0
MICROSOFT CORP 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
HITACHI LTD 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 0
PANASONIC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
With an estimated 1 US granted patents, Federated Wireless does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
15
16
16
16
17
17
19
21
22
23
26
26
27
28
28
29
34
50
51
52
69
69
70
94
166
Patent Trend | Total Counts
Federated Wireless’ portfolio is not heavily cited by others in the industry; it remains isolated from core tech companies
55
Federated Wireless lacks the IP breadth to have a commanding presence in this space
56Note: Includes text fields from 2,051 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Federated Wireless’ Patents in the Context of the
Broader Spectrum Wifi Domain
Denote Federated Wireless patents
ABLS I is another bet on potentially novel biotechnology, in which management has a track record of disappointments
57
• ABLS I was founded in 2014 with Yale University patents
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• Pre-clinical stage
• Using ARMs as a treatment for various types of cancer.
▪ Antibody Recruiting Molecules (ARMs): technology developed by Yale
University professor that attaches to a cancer, attracts the body’s innate
antibodies to it and hence destroys the target.
▪ Intended to replace or substitute therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies
(mAbs), which are large proteins and hence have greater difficulty
penetrating into tumor tissue.
▪ Promised ARM advantages over mAbs:
– Inexpensive to produce on a large scale
– Stable at elevated temperatures
– Unlikely to cause allergic responses
▪ Allied Minds – 74 % ownership interest
▪ ABLS I owns an estimated 9 patents
▪ Its technology remains unproven in a commercial setting, placing less value on the IP
owned
▪ ABLS I is invested early in a promising technology that ALM has not stated a
commercialization target for thus far – may take 5-10 years for any commercialization
▪ Allied Minds management track record in biopharma is below par -
ProGDerm/Novare have failed to commercialize in 10 years despite promising
“novel biotechnologies” as does ABLS I
▪ Track record extends to ABLS management too - CEO Satish Jindal helped found
and build Verastem, a NASDAQ listed stem-cell company whose stock fell
drastically in September 2015 after it halted a drug study and has remained below
80% of its IPO price ever since
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10+ Years2
(Technology concept
formulated)
$10M
Est. Profit S-Curve
ABLS I does not have much IP in a domain that is highly IP-driven
58
With an estimated 9 US granted patents, ABLS I does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
10
11
11
11
11
14
15
16
16
17
19
20
20
21
21
23
26
27
32
37
38
45
75
82
83
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
AGENSYS INC 0 0 0 2 5 4 6 1 11 3 10 4 4 9 5 4 8 3 2 2 0
GENENTECH INC 0 0 2 0 3 2 1 2 5 3 7 3 8 3 9 6 5 10 8 3 2
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 1 4 5 1 3 5 0 3 2 3 3 5 0 5 4 4 5 7 7 8
IMMUNOMEDICS INC 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 4 4 2 5 3 7 4 8
US HEALTH 0 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 3 1 1 2 4 0 3 1 1 4 2 1 7
IMMUNOGEN INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 9 2 1 1 1 3 4 4 2 2
UNIV TEXAS 0 0 2 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 3 3 3 0 2 1 2 3 3 1 1
ABBOTT LAB 2 2 4 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 5 2 0 0
MACROGENICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 3 0 6 2 3 2 2
UNIV MICHIGAN 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2
XENCOR INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 1 1 4 5 3 0
ONCOMED PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 3 3 5 2
MEDAREX INC 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 1 0
PFIZER 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 4 4 3
PF MEDICAMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 4 1 4 0 2
CORNELL RES FOUNDATION INC 0 2 0 5 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 2
BRIGHAM & WOMENS HOSPITAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 3
RAITANO ARTHUR B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 5 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
JAKOBOVITS AYA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
ONCOLYTICS BIOTECH INC 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
KARKI SHER BAHADUR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0
CHALLITA-EID PIA M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES INC 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
LAZAR GREGORY ALAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 0
ABLS I’s patent portfolio is not heavily cited by the industry, suggesting the portfolio is weaker
59
ABLS I does not have much domain coverage, and it stands to face competition from other small molecule therapeutics
60Note: Includes text fields from 1,572 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of ABLS I’s Patents in the Context of the Broader
Small Molecule Therapeutics for Prostate Cancer Domain
Denote ABLS I patents
ABLS II is building on patents much older than itself in an attempt to revive ALM’s flailing biopharma track record
61
• ABLS II was founded in 2014 with Harvard University based molecules
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• Pre-clinical stage
• Preclinical development and discovery of halofuginone analogues to treat fibrotic diseases
▪ Halofuginone (HF): a small molecule derived from febrifugine, a
natural product, that could potentially inhibit fibrosis, angiogenesis,
and chronic inflammation
▪ HF selectively blocks the differentiation of Th17 cells, which is a
common inflammatory cell implicated in autoimmune diseases
▪ ABLS II is developing analogues of HF against a specific target
(Prolyl tRNA Synthetas)
▪ Allied Minds – 80 % ownership interest
▪ Lacks a strong track record of consistent patenting (an estimated 7 US patents
granted in total, one in 1998 and the other in 2011)
▪ Niche technology area
▪ Time-scattered patenting implies another attempt to commercialize long-existing
academic research, a project with high uncertainties in both success and timing
▪ Allied Minds management track record in biopharma is below par -
ProGDerm/Novare have failed to commercialize in 10 years despite promising
“novel biotechnologies” as does ABLS II
▪ Track record extends to ABLS management too - CEO Satish Jindal helped
found and build Verastem, a NASDAQ listed stem-cell company whose stock
tanked in September 2015 after it halted a drug study and has remained below
80% of its IPO price ever since
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
HF Molecular Structure
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10+ Years2
(Technology concept
formulated)
$10M
Est. Profit S-Curve
ABLS II faces strong competition from a wide range of players in small molecule therapeutics for fibrotic
62
With an estimated 7 US granted patents, ABLS II does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
25
26
30
30
31
32
34
35
38
47
47
52
52
52
53
55
55
56
58
61
68
69
74
82
108
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SQUIBB BRISTOL MYERS CO 0 0 2 3 0 1 2 4 2 4 0 8 2 6 7 7 9 19 15 17 12
PFIZER 0 3 0 11 7 4 8 18 6 5 3 4 1 2 0 0 5 1 3 1 1
NOVARTIS AG 2 2 3 3 3 5 0 1 1 3 6 1 2 3 1 6 6 6 7 13 10
MERCK & CO INC 8 2 1 7 0 2 1 0 2 6 10 2 1 0 0 0 9 8 4 6 5
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 3 2 2 3 6 1 2 3 4 1 0 3 4 6 4 1 5 9 9 4
IMMUNOMEDICS INC 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 4 3 5 2 7 10 6 9 12
VERTEX PHARMA 2 5 2 5 3 12 8 6 1 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0
PHARMACYCLICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 3 8 4 8 12 14 5
ONO PHARMACEUTICAL CO 2 0 2 4 8 2 5 5 4 3 2 4 0 1 1 4 2 3 3 0 0
AMGEN INC 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 3 4 1 5 7 8 6 9 2 2
BIOGEN IDEC INC 0 0 1 1 2 0 7 1 2 4 7 6 1 1 2 2 2 5 6 3 3
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 9 5 1 3 4 1 9 11 4 10
MERCK SHARP & DOHME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 5 5 5 3 7 7 3 6 5
MERCK SERONO SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 10 4 2 5 4 7 5 3 5 0
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMA 0 1 0 2 7 10 11 6 6 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RES FOUND 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 7 0 10 14 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0
HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES INC 1 4 2 4 5 1 6 2 4 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
UNIV PENNSYLVANIA 1 4 0 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 3 4 3 1 2 0
ALLERGAN INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 5 14 5 9
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 3 4 0 2 0 4 3 3 3 2
MERCK PATENT GMBH 1 0 0 1 2 1 4 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 4 3 1
HOECHST AG 8 15 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 4
WARNER LAMBERT CO 0 1 0 4 4 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUGEN INC 6 1 9 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The assignee network for this domain consists of multiple citation groups, suggesting many competing therapy solutions
63
ABLS II’s patents sit on the periphery of the domain; unlikely that it will dominate the market long term
64
Semantic Text Clustering Map of ABLS II’s Patents in the Context of the Broader
Small Molecule Therapeutics for Fibrotic Domain
Denote ABLS II patents
Note: Includes text fields from 4,255 US grant patents
ABLS III completes ALM’s undiversified consortium of university lab based biopharma ventures in an attempt to cure cancer
65
• ABLS III was founded in 2016 from NYU patents
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• Pre-clinical stage
• Using proprietary compounds from NYU to develop oncological
solutions
▪ Proprietary compounds are Inhibitors of β-Catenin Responsive
Transcription (iCRTs); they are able to reduce tumor growth by
inhibiting the Wnt signaling pathway that functions abnormally in
tumorous cells
▪ Wnt signaling pathways regulate certain aspects of cell migration,
polarity, patterning etc. during cell growth; the compounds promise to
interfere with this process through inhibitor compounds while sparing its
non-oncogenic activities
▪ Allied Minds – 80 % ownership interest
▪ ABLS III has an estimated 6 US patents granted, one in 2009 and the other in 2012
▪ It has a small IP positioning in the domain in which it participates
▪ As an early stage oncological venture, ABLS III faces risks of time uncertainty,
commercial viability and cash burn
▪ Allied Minds management track record in biopharma is below par -
ProGDerm/Novare have failed to commercialize in 10 years despite promising
“novel biotechnologies” as does ABLS III
▪ Track record extends to ABLS management too - CEO Satish Jindal helped found
and build Verastem, a NASDAQ listed stem-cell company whose stock tanked in
September 2015 after it halted a drug study and has remained below 80% of its IPO
price ever since
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
β-Catenin structure
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10+ Years2
(Technology concept
formulated)
$10M
Est. Profit S-Curve
ABLS III lacks the necessary IP to compete effectively against other market players
66
With an estimated 6 US granted patents, ABLS III is tied for 14th most assignees for this technology area
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
9
9
9
9
11
11
12
13
14
14
17
23
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SAMUMED LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 8 4 6
NOVARTIS AG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 6
GENENTECH INC 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 2 1 1 0 0
ONCOMED PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 5
CHOONGWAE PHARMA CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 1
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1
CONG FENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 4
US HEALTH 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
DEUTSCHES KREBSFORSCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1
KC SUNIL KUMAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 0
HOOD JOHN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 0
ALNYLAM PHARMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2
ABLS III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1
KAHN MICHAEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
EGUCHI MASAKATSU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RAJEEV KALLANTHOTTATHIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
NGUYEN CU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
MOON SUNG HWAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
MANOHARAN MUTHIAH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
LEE SUNG CHAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
JEONG KWANG WON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
JASCO PHARMA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0
CHUNG JAE UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
ABLS III falls outside core assignees patenting in this domain, characteristic of a “moon shot” company
67
ABLS III’s patents are on the periphery of the patent landscape; chances of long term success are slim
68Note: Includes text fields from 205 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of ABLS III’s Patents in the Context of the Wnt
Signaling Pathways Domain
Denote ABLS III patents
BridgeSat’s optical system is backed by an external IP portfolio, whose cost of licensing will further fuel Allied Minds’ cash burn
69
• BridgeSat, Inc. was formed in 2015 based on technology developed at Partner Federally Funded Research and Development Centre
• Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts
• Development Stage
• Provides optical connectivity system as a mode of transmission from LEO Satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles, and terrestrial infrastructure
▪ Provides optical connectivity system that helps increase data
transmission efficiency at an amplified speed up to 10 Gbps.
▪ Collect more accurate and frequent downlink data from LEO Satellites
compared to that with RF transmission
▪ Produces wider spectrum and higher bandwidth with smaller
transmitter payload by avoiding traditional RF communication
infrastructures
▪ Allied Minds – 100% ownership interest
▪ BridgeSat has an estimated 1 US granted patent to date – BridgeSat has opted to buy
licenses and options for licensing technologies from Draper Labs in Massachusetts
▪ Intending to displace traditional Radio Frequency (RF) solutions, BridgeSat is
exposing itself to a wide array of issues, like sunlight interference, beam dispersion
and atmospheric absorption
▪ That a network of satellites is needed to build a system implies a huge capital
investment throughout the development stage with revenues many years away
▪ With an empty IP portfolio due to its choice to license rather than buy/invent:
▪ BridgeSat’s novelty can be bought out by any of the other established players in
the LEO market
▪ Licensing rather than owning raises questions about the commitment of ALM’s
management, whose companies are primarily marketed as “novel”
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10+ Years2
(Technology concept
formulated)
$3M
Est. Profit S-Curve
BridgeSat will face competition as it looks to commercialize its optical connectivity system
70
With an estimated 1 US granted patent, BridgeSat does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
10
10
17
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 2
HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORP 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TRIPP ROBERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0
MEDAPPS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LTD 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
US NAVY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 0
INVENTION SCIENCE FUND I
LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
HEWLETT PACKARD
DEVELOPMENT CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
AVANTE INTERNATIONAL
TECH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
AT & T IP I LP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
ELWHA LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2
KENT RALPH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
CROSLEY THOMAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
BARTLETT TERRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
MOTOROLA INC 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TECHRADIUM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SELMAN THOMAS H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
SELMAN AND ASSOCIATES
LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
JENNINGS MATTHEW J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
DICKS KENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
CONTRAVES SPACE AG 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WAHOO COMM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SYNCHRODYNE NETWORKS
INC 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SENSORIA CORP 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The patent assignee network in this area is complex; without core IP, BridgeSat has limited upside
71
BridgeSat will need to develop a strong patent position if it intends to win contracts long term
72Note: Includes text fields from 436 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of BridgeSat’s Patents in the Context of the Ground
Station Network Domain
Denote BridgeSat patents
HawkEye 360’s capital intensive launch should be met with concern given ALM’s track record in this space
73
• HawkEye 360 was formed in 2015
• Headquartered in Hemdon, VA
• Development Stage
• Increases monitoring and geolocation capabilities through a
constellation of form-flying small satellites in LEO.
▪ Provides signals to track transportation networks, detect distressed
alerts, conduct government missions and assist emergencies by
providing a wide maritime domain.
▪ Establish spectrum inventory for commercial carriers and wireless
regulators for RF monitoring
▪ Proprietary processing and analytics engines promises to own these
operations for the government and other customers
▪ Allied Minds – 75% ownership interest
▪ HawkEye360 has an estimated 0 US patents granted to date
▪ It will need IP to compete effectively in market
▪ As ALM’s second investment into a long-term space based communications system,
HawkEye 360 has potential to earn revenue but promises to burn lots of cash, and
not return value in the near future
▪ The rationales behind investing in BridgeSat and HawkEye 360 are somewhat
contradictory – the former bets on the decline of RF in favor of optical bands whereas
the latter bets on RF analytics; hedging a business with another business could prove
extremely costly for ALM’s investors
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10+ Years2
(Technology concept
formulated)
$3M
Est. Profit S-Curve
HawkEye360 lacks the IP necessary to compete in signal tracking technology
74
With an estimated 0 US granted patents, HawkEye360 does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
9
23
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignees 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1
INTEL CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0
BOEING CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
HARRIS CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 0
VIASAT INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0
SAVI TECHN INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
TRUEPOSITION INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
ATC TECH LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
THESLING WILLIAM H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
SIRF TECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SENSORIA CORP 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MOTOROLA INC 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HALGREN DONALD N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
CROWLEY ROBERT J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
CHESTER HOLDINGS LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
ZMRZLI ROBERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ZIARNO JAMES J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
WARD MATTHEW L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
WAHOO COMM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TABE JOSEPH AKWO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
SMITH MARK JEFFREY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
SCALISI JOSEPH F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
NIMON MATTHEW D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
NARDELLI ALBERT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MIM REINER G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The patent assignee network in signal tracking is complex; without core IP, HawkEye360 has limited upside
75
HawkEye360 will need to develop a strong patent position if it intends fend off competitors
76Note: Includes text fields from 344 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of HawkEye360’s Patents in the Context of the
Radio Frequency Mapping and Analytics Domain
Denote HawkEye360 patents
LuxCath is ushering in a real-time monitoring medical technology that has alternatives and no self-stated advantage over them
77
• LuxCath was formed in 2012
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• At least 3 FTE employees
• Development Stage
• Developing a medical instrument for cardiac ablation procedures
▪ Enables real-time visualization of lesions during cardiac ablation
procedures through fluorescence and optics; controls quality of catheter
lesions during procedure, as they are made
▪ Investigational Solution: delivers illumination via optical fiber to enable:
– Assessment of contact with tissue before and during procedure
– Assessment of catheter stability
– Direct lesion visualization while monitoring progress
▪ Allied Minds – 98 % ownership interest
▪ LuxCath owns an estimated 10 US granted patents in an innovation pipeline that has
been ongoing since 2005
▪ ALM and LuxCath claim advantages such as improved speed and optimized
outcomes of procedures but it is not clear whether improvements are relative to other
real-time monitoring methods or merely over not monitoring in real time at all
▪ “Inability to monitor tissue response in real time” in cardiac ablation surgeries is
certainly a challenge but not an unaddressed one – there are plenty of methods
currently available, from MRI to other RF optical spectroscopy methods
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
Current investigational device
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5+ Years4
(Technology validated
in lab)
$5M
Est. Profit S-Curve
LuxCath is a not a central player in this technology domain according to the patenting data
78
With an estimated 7 US granted patents, LuxCath ties for the 10th largest assignee in this technology area
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
16
17
18
21
24
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MEDTRONIC INC 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 5 2 1 1
ST JUDE MEDICAL ATRIAL
FIBRILL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 3 0
IRVINE BIOMEDICAL INC 2 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MEDTRONIC CRYOCATH LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1 0
CARDIOFOCUS INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
CARDIAC PACEMAKERS INC 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BOSTON SCIENT SCIMED INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
EP TECHNOLOGIES 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARNOLD JEFFREY M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
LUXCATH LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3
MELSKY GERALD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
SIEMENS AG 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
BARD INC C R 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
FARR NORMAN E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
AVITALL; BOAZ 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BAXTER LINCOLN S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
SINOFSKY EDWARD L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS MED 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
UNIV TEXAS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0
ABBOUD MARWAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BIOSENSE INC 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DAIG CORP 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MEDISPECTRA INC 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RES
FOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
LuxCath’s patents are not especially well cited, and its technology stands on the periphery of other existing markets
79
There are many other technologies that could address cardiac ablation monitoring; LuxCath is reaching for a limited value niche
80Note: Includes text fields from 299 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of LuxCath’s Patents in the Context of the Catheter
Domain
Denote LuxCath’s patents
Percipient Networks is trying to usher cloud-based malware into a cloud-skeptical market dominated 80% by its top 10 players
81
• Percipient Networks was formed in 2014 based on technology developed by The MITRE Corp and Whitewood Encryption Systems
• Headquartered in Wakefield, Massachusetts
• At least a __ FTE employees
• Commercial Stage
• Provides cloud-based cyber security technology
▪ Provides cyber security technology that utilizes automated threat
blockers, cloud-based intelligence platforms, remediation techniques
giving solutions for business network defenses.
▪ Strongarm: A cloud based technology built on ‘blackholing’ traffic and
monitoring outbound communications
▪ Currently in the early process of curating the Threat Intelligence to
combat increasing number of malware (Ransomware) and other
advanced attacks that infiltrated into the company
▪ Allied Minds – 100% ownership interest
▪ Percipient Networks has an estimated 0 US granted patents to date, which raises
questions about the novelty of its software solution
▪ At its essence, Percipient Networks is a provider of anti-Malware protection - a
market dominated by players like Microsoft and Avast
▪ It is not even in the top 30 by market share in an industry where the top 10 dominate
over 80% of the market
▪ While a cloud-only based malware protection system may provide auto updating and
higher speed, it is highly data dependent; relying only on an external server opens up
a whole new range of security risks, which is why businesses are skeptical of this
approach
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5+ Years6
(Technology
demonstrated in
relevant environment)
$2M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Percipient Networks faces a long, uphill battle to carve out market share from existing players in the industry
82
With an estimated 0 US granted patents, Percipient Networks does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
13
14
14
15
17
18
20
21
24
24
26
27
28
29
34
36
39
39
45
88
156
185
313
220
356
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SYMANTEC CORP 3 6 2 2 1 0 9 7 8 9 12 9 36 33 35 20 38 48 44 34 27
MCAFEE INC 0 0 0 1 5 52 22 7 9 12 16 19 11 10 11 26 25 35 27 25 19
MICROSOFT CORP 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 20 37 16 16 12 6 14 13 19 19 23 17 11
TREND MICRO INC 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 7 7 11 15 5 17 12 7 10 18 21 32 14 6
IBM 3 4 2 6 7 5 4 5 7 8 8 11 12 3 7 13 12 13 11 15 8
KASPERSKY LAB ZAO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 12 6 7 7 14 14 16 9
FORTINET INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 4 3 1 2 4 6 6 6 6 4 4
NETWORKS ASSOC TECH 0 0 0 1 19 10 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EMC CORP 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 5 1 0 2 4 2 5 2 4 8 3
INTEL CORP 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 4 7 4 2 0 0
RAYTHEON CO 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 5 8 5 1
F SECURE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 1 2 9 8 4
MICROSOFT TECH
LICENSING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 3 5 2 11 11
HP DEVELOPMENT CO 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 0
SATISH SOURABH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 6 8 3 1 0 0 0 0
LENOVO SINGAPORE PTE 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 2
INVENTION SCIENCE
FUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 2 1 1
COMPUTER ASSOC THINK 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
GOOGLE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 0
CISCO TECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 4
SALLAM AHMED SAID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 11 0 0 0 0 0
HITACHI LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
FIREEYE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 3 6 15
BITDEFENDER IPR MAN
LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 5 3 0 0
NACHENBERG CAREY S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0
The technology domain is dominated by much larger players with robust IP portfolios
83
Percipient has little hopes of controlling even a small niche in this market
84Note: Includes text fields from 2,055 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Percipient Network’s Patents in the Context of
the DNS Blackholing Domain
Denote Percipient Network’s patents
Despite having at least 9 US granted patents, Seamless Devices’ IP portfolio is dwarfed by other semiconductor players
85
• Seamless Devices was founded in 2014 with technology developed by a Columbia University professor
• Headquartered in Silicon Valley, California
• At least 3 FTE employees with 2 holding Ph.Ds
• Commercialization stage
• Provides signal processing solutions for wireless connectivity
▪ Switched-Mode Operational Amplifier (SMOA): a technology that
provides a novel class of feedback amplifiers in semiconductor
production to enable higher performance with the same power
▪ Applies patented switched-mode signal processing algorithms to fix
issues identified by the feedback amplifiers
▪ Provides a 40/80 MHz Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC), a high
dynamic range, low-voltage Analog Filter and a Programmable Gain
Amplifier (PGA).
▪ Allied Minds – 79.41% ownership interest
▪ Seamless Devices own an estimated 0 US granted patents
▪ The portfolio has been in development since the mid-2000s
▪ Slowed pace of innovation as majority of patenting done by Columbia professors
prior to ALM founding the company
▪ The average small cap company in the US semiconductor industry owns over 200
patents. Seamless Devices owns only 9, which means that:
– Its IP portfolio is weak relative to the larger semiconductor industry despite
an innovation pipeline of almost 10 years
– The market scope of applying Seamless’ SMOA technology to a wide variety
of semiconductor applications is far from “on the horizon”
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
Seamless Devices Analog Blocks
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5+ Years6
(Technology
demonstrated in
relevant environment)
$2M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Even in a narrowly defined SMOA domain, Seamless Devices has a middling portfolio
86
With an estimated 0 US granted patents, Seamless Devices does not make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
11
11
11
13
13
14
15
17
24
29
40
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC 0 2 2 3 3 2 3 5 3 1 1 3 3 2 0 2 2 2 1 0 0
BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 2
ANALOG DEVICES INC 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 4 2 2
FUJITSU LTD 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 3 1 0
NAT SEMICONDUCTOR CORP 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO
LTD 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
ST MICROELECTRONICS SRL 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 2
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
CANON KK 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 0 1
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR
MFG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 3 1 2
RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 0
IBM 0 0 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
AG 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
CIRRUS LOGIC INC 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
MAXIM INTEGRATED
PRODUCTS 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2
MARVELL INT LTD 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
HONEYWELL INT INC 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1
TOSHIBA KK 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
MOTOROLA INC 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RAYTHEON CO 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
YAMAHA CORP 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ERICSSON TELEFON AB L M 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOCKHEED CORP 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Seamless Devices’ IP lacks both patenting volume and centrality compared to other players
87
Seamless Devices needs much broader coverage if it intends to be dominant in this industry
88Note: Includes text fields from 646 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Seamless Device’s Patents in the Context of the
Analog Front End (AFE) Domain
Denote Seamless Devices patents
Whitewood is attempting to compete with established hardware RNG producers that have much larger capital sources
89
• Whitewood Encryption Systems was formed in 2014 based on technology developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• At least 3 FTE employees
• Commercial Stage
• Produces physical Random Number Generator (RNG) devices
▪ Entropy Engine: a hardware based Random Number Generator in PCI
Express form factor capable of 200Mbit/s of random number; uses
physical measurements on a quantum optical field to generate digital
bits
▪ netRandom: products that standardize access to random numbers using
a server, client application and API access; incorporates the Entropy
Engine on the server.
▪ These random numbers are used
by the OS and other local
applications that rely on
cryptography.
▪ Allied Minds – 100 % ownership interest
▪ Whitewood has an estimated 10 US granted patents in an innovation pipeline that
has been ongoing since 2011
▪ The technology is not well cited
▪ Whitewood Encryption Systems is operating in an industry (hardware RNGs) with
over 18 established players, including Intel
▪ Although it promises ‘truly random number’ generation due to its use of quantum
mechanics, there are a number of other companies using quantum methods
▪ One of its largest direct competitors, ID Quantique, stands to benefit from a huge
chunk of a >$1 billion EU quantum computing project in 2018, an amount that
Allied Minds hasn’t invested in a single subsidiary, let alone Whitewood, which isn’t
even among its top 10 investments
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
netRandom
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5+ Years7
(System prototype in
operational
environment)
$0.5M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Although Whitewood promises “truly random number” generation, there are other companies using similar methods
90
With an estimated 10 US granted patents, Whitewood has the 25th most assignees for this technology area
10
12
16
16
17
19
20
20
21
21
25
25
30
32
42
42
48
52
54
60
62
71
71
72
94
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SONY CORP 0 5 3 1 3 1 3 6 7 7 7 3 1 6 4 10 5 8 9 3 2
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 6 10 11 7 0 2 1 9 9 1 5 4 1
TOSHIBA KK 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 4 4 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 14 14 13
IBM 3 4 1 2 3 2 3 6 3 1 3 3 7 2 2 4 4 4 7 4 6
SILVERBROOK RES PTY LTD 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 3 2 15 0 10 7 1 3 8 4 0 0 0 0
PANASONIC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 6 12 5 2 4 9 7 5 2 2 1
NEC CORP 0 0 2 2 4 3 1 0 2 2 3 6 1 4 2 7 3 8 2 1 1
MICROSOFT CORP 1 1 1 0 6 3 1 0 3 5 3 0 4 2 4 5 2 6 3 2 1
INTEL CORP 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 2 4 4 3 4 3 7
FUJITSU LTD 2 3 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 2 0 2 2 1 3 3 3 5 4
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC IND CO LTD 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 9 7 5 2 2 1
HEWLETT PACKARD DEVELOPMENT
CO 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 2 4 3 0 1 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 2
HITACHI LTD 0 2 1 2 3 3 1 1 0 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 4 2 0 1 1
BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 3 3 1
QUALCOMM INC 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2
DIEBOLD SELF SERVICE SYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 6 3 1 1 2
UNIV KING FAHD PET & MINERALS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 6 1 4 4 0 2 1
KATO TAKU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 3 0 0 0
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 4 2
NAGAI YUJI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 0 0 0
FUJI XEROX CO LTD 0 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1
MATSUSHITA TATSUYUKI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0
KOREA ELECTRONICS TELECOMM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 0 0 0
KOOLSPAN INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
WHITEWOOD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 3
Whitewood is neither a central nor influential assignee in the encryption domain
91
Whitewood’s patents are on the periphery of the domain; its long term upside should be tempered
92Note: Includes text fields from 1,706 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Whitewood’s Patents in the Context of the
Quantum Number Generator Encryption Domain
Denote Whitewood patents
Appendix
93
The ALM Subsidiary Graveyard
Biotectix, a producer of polymer coating tech, has failed to show how it will scale commercially
94
• Biotectix was founded in 2007 with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor through a patent option agreement
• Headquartered in Richmond, CA
• At least 8 FTE employees, 2 of whom are Ph.Ds.
• Develops and manufactures a new class of conductive polymer coatings for electrodes on implantable medical devices
▪ Biotectix has a strong IP portfolio in polymer coatings
▪ Polymer coating of medical devices is an extensively researched field
▪ Biotectix faces strong competition from other players in the industry that offer
substitutes
▪ The company has failed to scale commercially to date
▪ Despite strong IP portfolio, experienced only a moderate increase in valuation of
$500,000 from 2014 to 2015, hinting at unprofitability and potentially a lack of
commercial options
▪ BT DOT: polymer electrode material with a soft, functional surface for
connecting hard, eclectically conducive devices to wet tissue
▪ BT GelDOT: three-dimensional polymer-hydrogel material useful as a
coating or solid construct for gentle interfacing to minimize scarring
▪ BT DOT Sleeve: technology for coating lead conductors using a
polymer composition to increase flexibility and prevent cracking
▪ $9.5 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 64.35% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $9.2 million
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ Biotectix has an estimated 9 US granted patents
▪ It has a stronger IP portfolio than other companies in the ALM’s portfolio
IP Strength
Value Metrics
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5-7 Years8
(System complete and
qualified)
$5M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Biotectix has a large portfolio, but still faces competition from others in the market
95
With an estimated 9 US granted patents, Biotectix owns enough patents to make the “Top 10” list for this technology area
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
11
11
12
12
13
15
16
16
25
26
26
27
27
45
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MEDTRONIC INC 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 6 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 7 7 7 5 2
BOSTON SCIENT SCIMED INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 3 3 3 6
COVIDIEN LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 4 5 6 4 1
CARDIAC PACEMAKERS INC 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
ST JUDE MEDICAL ATRIAL
FIBRILL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 1 2 0 2 4 3 2 3 0
SECOND SIGHT MEDICAL
PROD INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 1 4 5 3 4 3
GREATBATCH LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 6 2 0
TALBOT NEIL HAMILTON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 1
ETHICON ENDO SURGERY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 6 0 1 1
BOSTON SCIENT
NEUROMODULATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 4
SONITUS MEDICAL INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
COVIDIEN AG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 0
PACESETTER INC 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
ETHICON INC 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0
BIOTECTIX LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 0
MASSACHUSETTS INST
TECHNOLOGY 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1
ATANASOSKA LILIANA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 0
NEYSMITH JORDAN
MATTHEW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
GREENBERG ROBERT J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
CALIFORNIA INST OF TECHN 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PAUL SAURAV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LITTLE JAMES SINGLETON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
BIOPHAN TECHNOLOGIES INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Biotectix’s IP portfolio is less central than would be expected, given the patenting volume; this indicates weaker patents
96
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Biotectix’s patents are on the periphery of the patent domain; the technology is still emergent
97Note: Includes text fields from 679 US grant patents
Denote Biotectix patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Biotectix’s Patents in the Context of the Broader
Conducting Polymer Medical Materials Domain
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Cephalogics is developing noninvasive cerebral imaging technology but has not commercialized a single version of its product in ten years
98
• Cephalogics was founded in 2006 in partnership with a WUSTL Professor of Radiology
• Headquartered in Cambridge, MA
• At least 8 FTE employees, with 4 Ph.Ds
• Developing a noninvasive bedside neuroimaging system to provide real time cerebral monitoring; product development stage
▪ Cephalogics hasn’t commercialized a single version of the product nor submitted a
510(k) premarket submission to the FDA for over 10 years since its inception
▪ The company as still in R&D mode for last 9 years with plans to submit a premarket
to the FDA having only been formulated in 2015
▪ Only one granted patent – less than exceptional IP portfolio for the cash and time
burn
▪ Successfully completed third generation system in 2015, the prototype testing of
which achieved its performance targets; however, no material sales (at least as
reported in ALM’s annual report)
▪ Utilizes Diffuse Optical Tomography (DOT)
technology to provide portable, patient bedside
imaging of cerebral vascular regions
▪ A high-density arrangement of near-infrared light
sources and detectors provide the measurements
through each sensor array
▪ Proprietary algorithms are then used to visualize the
measurements and hence provide insights into
cerebral tissue oxygen levels and other such metrics.
▪ $13.7 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 95% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $13.7 million
DOT device
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ Cephalogics has an estimated 8 US granted patents
▪ This level of protection does not bode well for the company given the high patenting
rates of its competitors
IP Strength
Value Metrics
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5-7 Years6
(Technology
demonstrated in
relevant environment)
$5M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Cephalogics lacks the requisite IP to compete effectively in the market
99
With an estimated 8 US granted patents, Cephalogics does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
15
15
15
15
16
17
18
19
21
21
22
22
24
24
25
27
28
29
30
33
35
37
45
60
67
Patent Trend | Total Counts
Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MEDTRONIC INC 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 6 12 1 4 3 0 14 4 7 6 3
GEN ELECTRIC 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 4 7 2 6 2 0 2 4 4 5 9 9
INVENTION SCIENCE FUND I LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 13 3 3 1 6 5 1 5 2
SIEMENS AG 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 6 10 5 1 1 1 2 1 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 3 2 3 1 3 4 2 2 4
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 2 5 4 7 5
UNIV TEXAS 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 3 2 0 0 4 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 1
UNIV LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 3 6
GEN HOSPITAL CORP 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 4 3 1 0 1 1 1 3 2 3
YEDA RES & DEV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 5 4
MAYO FOUNDATION 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 3
UNIV PENNSYLVANIA 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2
UNIV NEW YORK 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 3 3 4 3 1 2 1
SIEMENS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 5 1 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 0
UNIV JOHNS HOPKINS 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 2 0 3 2 1 4
WOOD JR LOWELL L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 9 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV ILLINOIS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 0 2 0 3 2 1 3 1
UNIV WASHINGTON 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0
LEUTHARDT ERIC C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
GE MED SYS GLOBAL TECH CO LLC 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
AGENCY SCIENCE TECH & RES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 2 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
MALAMUD MARK A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
LORD ROBERT W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
LEVIEN ROYCE A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
KONINKL PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NV 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Cephalogics has a fairly central patenting position, but lacks the sheer patenting volume characteristic of market winners
100
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Cephalogics faces heavy competition in other imaging and diagnostics systems
101Note: Includes text fields from 1,861 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Cephalogics’ Patents in the Context of the
Broader Brain Imaging Domain
Denote Cephalogics patents
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
CryoXtract, a laboratory equipment producer, suffers from weak market penetration and management that lacks a strong track record
102
• CryoXtract was founded in 2008
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• At least 10 FTE employees
• Commercial Stage
• Delivers laboratory automation and solutions to store, dispense and utilize frozen human biospecimens
▪ Slower than anticipated sales led to a decrease in valuation from $17.8 million to
$12.6 million from 2014 to 2015, indicating -30% return on investment
▪ Weak management, as evidenced by
– COO Jorge de Dios – held executive positions at Teligent (1999-2002),
which filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and at Fibertower (2002-2008), whose
loss quadrupled under his leadership
– Ex-CEO John McCarthy – ex-CFO of Verenium whose stock dropped 90%
under his leadership and was absorbed by BASF
▪ CXT 750: An automated frozen aliquotter that enables storage and
hands-free management of blood, feces, urine and other biofluids to
improve analytical reproducibility, quality of studies and enable use of
smaller sample volumes.
▪ CXT 350/353: Benchtop frozen aliquotters to extract multiple frozen
cores or aliquots from a sample.
▪ $17.3 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 93.24% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $17.3 million
CXT 350 CXT 750
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ CryoXtract has an estimated 5 US granted patents
▪ It faces strong competition from other market players and arguably delivers a
negligible tech advantage, if at all
IP Strength
Value Metrics
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5-7 Years9
(Actual system proven
in operational
environment)
$5M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
CryoXtract is competing against a wide range of other players; market share goals should be adjusted accordingly
103
With an estimated 5 US granted patents, CryoXtract does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
20
20
23
26
27
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
DU PONT 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 7 0 2 0 4 1 5 3 1
BECKMAN COULTER INC 0 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 5
UOP LLC 1 1 3 4 4 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
MEDTRONIC INC 1 2 1 5 0 7 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 3 1 0 2 4 1
VASOGEN IRELAND LTD 0 0 1 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SYSMEX CORP 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 1
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS
OPERATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 4 4
BAYER AG 6 4 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
BECTON DICKINSON CO 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0
APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 1
GYROS PATENT AB 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
WYATT TECHNOLOGY 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0
ABBOTT LAB 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE
DIAGNOSTICS 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0
PIONEER HI BRED INT 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1
HENKEL CORP 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DADE BEHRING INC 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CALLIDA GENOMICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0
ESCREEN INC 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
UNIV NORTHEASTERN 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0
COULTER INT CORP 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TEARLAB RES INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
IDEXX LAB INC 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
CryoXtract is not core to the broader industry patent citation network, indicating a weaker IP positioning
104
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
CryoXtract’s patents sit on the periphery of the domain; unlikely to command significant market share in the near term
105Note: Includes text fields from 1,367 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of CryoExtract’s Patents in the Context of the
Broader Biostorage Domain
Denote CryoExtract patents
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
OptioLabs sells mobile security apps for the Android OEM niche, which has established, diversified players and limited market size
106
• OptioLabs was founded in 2012
• Headquartered in Baltimore, MD
• At least 33 FTE employees with 3 Ph.Ds
• Commercial stage
• Develops mobile malware protection and security applications for Android OEMs
▪ Narrow focus on Android devices limits high-end market potential in the iOS sphere
▪ Operating in an industry with established leaders providing cybersecurity solutions
such as anti-virus software and firewalls
▪ By packaging extremely similar, non-novel security solutions as separate products, the
current business model is neither friendly nor switch-incentivizing for customers
▪ Optio Labs acquired Oculis Labs in 2015 to expand product portfolio into
specialized data privacy software tools and internal network threat protection; the
benefits of this merger remain limited
▪ OptioCore: context-based security platform for Android Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) that can monitor, block or modify
attempts to call individual methods on the OS
▪ OptioInsight: context-aware visibility for security reporting and analytics,
cybersecurity teams to manage policies and provide access via the cloud
▪ OptioServices: security assessments/penetration testing, securing
applications, and other service-based solutions for Android
▪ Optioaware: protection from physical intrusion through securing of
unattended workstations, eavesdropper and intruder detection
▪ $11.9 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 81.23% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $9.4 million
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ Optio Labs has an estimated 1 US granted patent
▪ It lacks the IP necessary to compete in the mobile security market, which is highly
innovative
IP Strength
Value Metrics
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5-7 Years7
(System prototype
demonstration in
operational
environment)
$3M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
OptioLabs is operating in an industry with established leaders providing cybersecurity solutions
107
Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
RESEARCH IN MOTION 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 11 7 4 7 5 4 5 4 3 4 0 0 0
SAMSUNG 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 3 7 5 4 1 6 6 0 1 8 0
BLACKBERRY LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 11 5 11 8 2 1 0
NOKIA CORP 0 0 0 2 1 5 7 4 8 6 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
QUALCOMM INC 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 2 5 4 6 2 5 5 2 6 1 0 0
ERICSSON TELEFON 0 1 2 6 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 3 2 2 7 1 2 0 1 0 0
SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS CO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 1 3 12 13 4 0 0
INTEL CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 5 2 3 4 2 8 2 2 0 0
LG ELECTRONICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 6 3 5 4 0 3 0 0
IBM 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 6 5 6 1 0
MICROSOFT CORP 0 0 1 0 2 6 1 1 4 5 2 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0
CISCO TECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 8 5 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0
NTT DOCOMO INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 5 1 2 5 4 1 0 0 0
AT & T MOBILITY II LLC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 5 4 0 1 5 3 3 0 0
LOOKOUT INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 6 9 3 0 0
AT & T IP I LP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 5 2 0 0
ALCATEL LUCENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 0 0
APPLE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 1 3 4 1 0 0
BROADCOM CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 1 2 0 4 2 0 0
ZTE CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 8 0 1 0 0
VERIZON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 7 1 3 0 0
SYMANTEC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 3 3 1 0 0
KOREA ELECTRONICS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 0
NEC CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
MCAFEE INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0
ICONTROL NETWORKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
With an estimated 1 US granted patents, Optio Labs does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
13
13
14
14
17
17
18
19
22
24
26
27
27
30
31
33
33
37
42
43
45
46
47
56
59
Patent Trend | Total Counts
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
OptioLabs’ IP is not cited heavily by other established players in the space
108
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
OptioLabs’ IP portfolio occupies a niche in the overall technology domain; market penetration upside is limited
109Note: Includes text fields from 1,808 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Federated Wireless’ Patents in the Context of the
Broader Mobile Malware Security Domain
Denote Optio Labs patents
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Novare (ProGDerm) is not close to commercializing its technology and the company faces competition from other therapeutic products
110
• Novare Pharmaceuticals launched in 2012 as an expansion to Allied Minds subsidiary ProGDerm, which was launched in 2006
• Headquartered in Boston, MA
• Under 10 LTE employees
• Product development/research stage
• Develops therapeutic products through the modulation of RHAMM, a natural protein that alters cell behavior
▪ Like its sister subsidiaries, it has not reached commercial stage despite 10 years of research
▪ Novare is a spinoff of research initially conducted by ProGDerm, whose intended applications were deemed unsuccessful; it therefore runs the risk of failure due to reliance on the same RHAMM-based solutions
▪ Only biotech company committed to treating disease using RHAMM-based responses
▪ Faces competition from other therapeutic options; at best, it hopes to secure a small niche (notwithstanding years of continued investment)
▪ RHAMM: Receptor for Hyaluronan-Mediated Motility, a protein that regulates cell movement and stem cell differentiation
▪ Novare research indicates that blocking RHAMM can safely and efficaciously destroy inflammation, reduce fibrosis and stimulate fat growth
▪ The technology can thus treat many inflammatory conditions BPD (found in infants and caused with arthritis), fibrotic diseases like IPF and post-surgical wounds by reducing or eliminating scarring.
▪ Could potentially improve outcomes of breast cancer treatments and tissue generation post mastectomy
▪ $6.2 million in invested capital as of April 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 90.38% ownership interest
– Invested Capital: $6.2 million
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
▪ Novare has an estimated 2 US granted patents
▪ Novare is a key player in RHAMM modulation research, but the domain itself is very
small
IP Strength
Value Metrics
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10 Years1
(Basic principles
observed)
$10M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Novare is competing against many other players with much larger R&D budgets
111
With an estimated 1 US granted patents, Novare does not own enough patents to make the “Top 25” list for this technology area
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
12
12
14
14
15
15
16
18
23
25
28
32
33
36
40
Assignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ELAN PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 0 4 2 5 4 6 3 2 2 0 0 0
PFIZER 0 0 1 4 10 5 5 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WYETH CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 1 1 0 0 0
MERCK & CO INC 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 0 1 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AMGEN INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 8 2 2 1 1 0 0 0
WARNER LAMBERT CO 0 0 0 3 4 5 5 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUMAN GENOME SCIENCES 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 0 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DARWIN DISCOVERY LTD 0 0 0 5 4 5 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP 0 0 0 3 1 3 4 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV PENNSYLVANIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0
AMERICAN HOME PROD 0 0 0 1 2 1 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NOVARTIS AG 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1
GENENTECH INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 4 1 2 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO 0 0 0 3 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
QUADRA LOGIC TECH INC 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
GUILFORD PHARM INC 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV NEW YORK 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 2
UNIV MICHIGAN 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
ICOS CORP 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BOEHRINGER PHARMA 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VERTEX PHARMA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0
CYTOVIA INC 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AVENTIS PHARMA GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV TEXAS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Patent Trend | Total Counts
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Novare’s patenting volume is low; more established players like Pfizer and Elan Pharma seek to gain in the long term
112
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Novare’s IP occupies a small niche in the broader domain; market share goals should be tempered
113Note: Includes text fields from 1,244 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of Novare’s Patents in the Context of the Broader
RHAMM modulation Domain
Denote Novare patents
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
RF Biocidics has developed a disinfection system that has been cast into a niche market – it is facing ongoing regulatory delays
114
• RF Biocidics was founded in 2008 from patents owned by University of California, Davis
• Headquartered in Sacramento, California
• At least 30 FTE employees
• Commercial stage
• RF Biocidics provides organic, non-chemical food disinfectant
▪ RF Biocidics generated $6.5M in revenue in 2014 and less than $1M in 2015;
this is an alarming downward trend
▪ Tiny market, as evidenced by low sales
▪ Equipment has a long life and therefore multiple sales to existing clients is unlikely in
the near future
▪ RF Biocidics has a few partnerships (limited to the date and almond industry)
▪ Regulatory delays could continue long-term
▪ Total comprehensive loss of $7.2 million in 2015, up from $4.5 million in 2015
▪ Utilizes radio frequency photons at specific frequencies to activate specific
target molecules, inducing well-controlled thermal and electronic effects
that lead to disinfection, disinfestation, enzyme inactivation and drying
▪ APEX system: Main product; few moving parts (i.e. long product life);
includes PLC systems with precision fabrication and assembly
▪ Sentinel system:
Specifically
designed for
high moisture
and high salinity
commodities
▪ Stems from a group of related patents issued to Manual Lagunas-Solar, owned by
University of California, Davis
▪ With only 4 granted patents, RF Biocidics lags competitors in this space
▪ $38.4 million in total invested capital as of Dec 2015
▪ Allied Minds – 67.14% ownership interest
– Invested capital: $30.4 million
APEX unit
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
Est. Profit S-Curve TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
5-7
Years
9(Actual system in
operational
environment)
$2M
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
RF Biocidics is facing massive competition against other companies in the food sterilization space
115
With an estimated 7 US granted patents, RF Biocidics is tied with the last of the Top 25 in RF sterilization (and severely lags in the broad sterilization domain)
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
10
8
10
10
38
64
44
55
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PROCTER & GAMBLE 3 12 3 10 4 8 5 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
NESTEC SA 3 3 5 2 3 2 5 2 4 1 0 2 2 2 6 0 0 0 2 0 0
ECOLAB INC 1 3 0 4 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 5 9 6 9 3 5 0 1
TETRA LAVAL 4 5 1 4 4 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1
WHIRLPOOL CO 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
LG ELECTRONICS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
MEDICAL INSTILL
TECH 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
LYCO MFG INC 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
CARGILL INC 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOYO SEIKAN KAISHA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
NALCO CHEMICAL CO 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CJ CHEILJEDANG CORP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0
BASF AG 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3M 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
SOLUTIONS BIOMED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SAMSUNG 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COLGATE PALMOLIVE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
BASF SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
NOVO NORDISK AS 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NALCO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KURARAY CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
KIMBERLY CLARK CO 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUELS CHEMISCHE AG 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GEN MILLS INC 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
RF Biocidics’ portfolio is not well cited by others in the food sterilization space
116
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
RF Biocidics’ patents are on the periphery of the RF sterilization domain
117Note: Includes text fields from 544 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of RF Biocidics’ Patents in the Context of the
Broader RF Sterilization Domain
Denote RF Biocidics patents
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Estimated Subsidiary Valuation
(in millions USD) Reasoning
ALM’s implied valuation of RF Biocidics is $59.6M: our optimistic estimate is that it is less than $10M
118
~50M+
Difference
NPV of
Future
Earnings
Liquidation
of Subsidiary
Assets
Comps
Analysis
RFB generated less than $1M in
revenue in 2015 with a net loss of
$7.2M; assuming it generates a
profit of $1M / yr. [1] for the next
10 yrs. at a 3% discount rate, the
NPV is $8.5M
RFB has stated assets of
$7.8M. If it were to liquidate
all of these assets at a 20%
premium, it may hope to
generate $10M
If all 4 US granted RFB patents
were successfully litigated, one
could expect RFB to generate
~$3.5M (or 883k x 4); if it were
to sell its portfolio to a
competitor at a 200% premium,
it could generate $10.5M
*ALM states that it owns 67.14 % of RF Biocidics, Inc., or a $40M stake. Therefore the implied valuation of RF Biocides is $59.6M (or $40M / 0.6714).
$0 $15 $30 $45 $60 $75
ALM’s Implied
Valuation
($59.6M)*
DRG Estimated
Valuation
($9.7M)
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
Facing stagnant sales, SoundCure relies on a sister company, which also sells competing products, to develop its market
119
• SoundCure was formed in 2009
• Headquartered in San Jose, CA
• At least a __ FTE employees
• Commercial Stage
• Provides FDA-cleared consumer medical device for tinnitus therapy through acoustic technology and online audiology-based telehealth
▪ Incorporates Provides Tinnitus care tool and S-Tone sound therapy, a
patterned sound treatment at frequencies near tinnitus pitch, patented
in Canada and Europe.
▪ Tinnitus Treatment Solutions (TTS): An online tinnitus therapy source
that provides telemedicine channel and sells serenade devices, tinnitus
accessories and hearing aids from “Big 6” hearing aid manufacturers.
▪ Partnered with HearUSA and AARP in creating the tinnitus care
affiliation, soliciting 4000+ providers and a subsidiary in Canada.
▪ Allied Minds – 84.62% ownership interest
▪ SoundCure has an estimated 6 US granted patents
▪ The portfolio is small in the context of tinnitus treatment
▪ Reviews of this technology by users in the market have been strongly negative,
indicating a fundamental and potentially irreparable problem with the underlying
technology
▪ SoundCure is focusing on market development through a sister company, TTS, an
online tinnitus therapy source; a questionable decision because TTS also sells hearing
aids from, as ALM’s annual report calls them, the Big 6 hearing aid manufacturers
IP Strength
Value Metrics
Company Description
Technology Overview
Key Investors
Assessment
TRL Level
Estimated Time
to Profit
10+ Years8
(System complete and
qualified)
$0.5M
Est. Profit S-Curve
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
There are many other players thinking about tinnitus treatment; SoundCure is not alone
120
With an estimated 6 US granted patents, Sound Cure ties for 17th most assignees for this technology area
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
10
14
19
19
Patent Trend | Total CountsAssignee 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
GRUENENTHAL GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0
UNIV CALIFORNIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 4 5 1 2
ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION
SYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 0
OTONOMY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 0
MICROTRANSPONDER INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 0
SEPRACOR INC 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MERCK PATENT GMBH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PLC 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UNIV TEXAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 3 8
GN RESOUND AS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 1
LEBEL CARL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
LICHTER JAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
NEUROMONICS PTY LTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
PIU FABRICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
TRAMMEL ANDREW M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
DELLAMARY LUIS A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
HARRIS JEFFREY P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
PFIZER 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOUNDCURE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1
UNIV IOWA RES FOUND 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YE QIANG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
EURO CELTIQUE SA 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOLLRATH BENEDIKT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
GEMINI MARKETING CORP 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
SoundCure is not the most influential assignee in the patent assignee network
121
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
SoundCure will need to change problems with its commercialized products and continue patenting if it hopes to succeed in the market
122Note: Includes text fields from 431 US grant patents
Semantic Text Clustering Map of SoundCure’s Patents in the Context of the
Tinnitus Treatment Domain
Denote SoundCure patents
Terminated on April 7th, 2017
On confronting the inevitable
123
Life asked Death, “Why do people love me and
hate you?”
Death replied, “Because you are a beautiful lie
and I’m a painful Truth.”
- Unknown
Thank you
For more information, please contact Devonshire Research Group, LLC on Bloomberg: DRGTEAM
Top Related