License, Spin Out, or Publish? How to Make the Translational Call

In the sciences, academic researchers like to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, which helps their reputation as an expert and pioneer as well as their tenure track, but if the discovery has commercial potential, there are some next steps to consider that may include licensing the discovery to a pharma company to develop into a drug, or choosing to spinout into their own company.

“This process is rarely linear and certainly not one-size-fits-all. The best path forward depends on the nature of the technology, the competitive landscape, the funding environment, and the long-term development potential,” Janis Paradiso, MBA, CLP, Director of the Office of Biotechnology and Business Development at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told Cure.

Cure spoke to Paradiso and Benjamin Dibling, PhD, Managing Director of the Penn Center for Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania, on each avenue.

When publication-only or publication-plus makes sense

At academic institutions, the mission to share new knowledge is foundational, which is why publication may be the best route forward in these cases.

“Particularly when the technology is a research tool, reagent, or software that is broadly useful but may not warrant patent protection,” said Paradiso.

Dibling noted that while Penn sees commercialization and publication as complementary, not mutually exclusive, publication-only may be the best path when:

• The research doesn’t clearly address an unmet need yet.

  Some technologies are too early-stage or speculative to attract commercial interest. In these cases, publishing is still valuable for knowledge dissemination and advancing the field.

• There’s no strong commercial potential or IP strategy.

  If a discovery can’t be effectively protected by intellectual property (e.g., it’s too incremental, not patentable, or the publication would undermine patent rights), commercialization may not be viable.

• The researcher’s primary goal is academic impact.

  Faculty are under “publish or perish” pressures. If they prioritize advancing scientific understanding and academic recognition rather than product development, publication-only may make sense.

• The technology doesn’t require private sector investment to make an impact.

  Some findings have their greatest value through open dissemination rather than productization. For example, basic research, methodological advances, or foundational data sets.

• It’s too late to protect IP.

  If publication or public disclosure has already occurred before evaluating IP, commercialization options may be limited, making publication the default route.

“We are never going to impede your ability to publish and we are never going to tell you, you can’t publish,” said Dibling. “If we were a company, we might say, ‘that’s really cool; don’t talk about this at conferences or meetings because we don’t want to give our competition an advantage.’ As a university, we are going to say, ‘we’ll file for a patent,’ if that’s the route we want to go down.”

When Licensing to a company is a good option

Licensing an innovation to an established company may be the preferred route when the asset is a single therapeutic candidate, “as these companies should have the infrastructure, regulatory expertise, and resources needed to advance the technology efficiently,” said Paradiso.

Dibling agreed, and noted that university research is inherently early stage.

“You’ve really got to look at the opportunity and say: is this going to advance quickly through a startup? Is the asset investible right now?’ Or is it better putting it in the hands of a business that already has all the necessary resources and capabilities to bring this to market?”

However, the technology should be far enough along or de-risked enough (e.g., with key experiments done, proof-of-concept data) to make it attractive for a company to take on, he added.

He pointed to a technology that was developed at the Penn Center for Innovation but needed the resources of a company to get more funding and talent to move it forward and be attractive for a commercial entity. The innovation is CPTX2309, a potential first-in-class in vivo targeted lipid nanoparticle (tLNP) anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy candidate for the treatment of B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases.

“We licensed the technology to Capstan Therapeutics. They continued the collaboration with the university, but they advanced the technology. They got it into its first human studies, and the whole company just got acquired by AbbVie for $2.1 billion,” said Dibling.

Capstan Therapeutics had talented founders and faculty, and a high-quality group of venture investors that motivated Penn to spin out to them.

“It turned out amazing,” said Dibling. “I don’t think an established business would’ve come in and taken a license to the technology at the time when we were thinking about doing a startup.”

Licensing to a company also makes sense when a researcher is not aiming to build a startup.

“It’s not a trivial endeavor…most startups fail. That’s the reality,” said Dibling. “If you want to go down that route, it’s a commitment to a lot of time and effort and you need to be prepared for that.”

Spinning out into a startup company

Some inventors have the end-goal of establishing a startup. If the discovery represents a platform technology with applications across multiple disease areas or the potential to support a robust pipeline, Paradiso said spinning out a startup may be more advantageous.

“This path usually allows for greater control over development of the technology and can attract venture capital or non-dilutive funding to build out the opportunity,” said Paradiso.

Startups can tap into funding streams that universities aren’t eligible for, added Dibling.

“Federal funding [that universities get] don’t really fund product development, so putting that technology in a startup company allows you to secure funding from other sources that the university wouldn’t normally be able to tap into,” he said.

For example, funds that might be available to a startup that wouldn’t be available to a university include SBIR and STTR programs.

“Those are awards that are made to small businesses, and the small business has to be the applicant. So, Penn can’t apply for that funding,” he said.

Startups can also access venture capital and angel investment to move the technology forward.

Bottom Line: Find the best fit for you

Ultimately, the goal is to keep promising technologies moving forward, said Paradiso.

“Whether through licensing, startup formation, or publication, the key is to find the right outlet that aligns with the nature of the discovery and the goals of the institution and researchers,” she said. “Early engagement with the technology transfer office is essential to explore options, understand the market landscape, and develop a thoughtful strategy for impact.”