UW APL & CIE Invention to Start Up Jack Gallagher Pierre Mourad

1. UW APL & CIE Invention to Start Up Jack Gallagher Pierre Mourad

2. Agenda • How We Got Started • University Resources • Intellectual Property • Building a Team • Business Plan • Funding Sources • Research Process & Evolution • Research Concept Findings • Questions

3. How We Got Started • Random meeting with Allez PhysiOnix • Started research at UW in August 2003 (WTC Grants) • Negotiated exclusive license to UW technology (Tech Transfer) • First patent published in 2005 (Tech Transfer) • Funding from founders, private investors (Angels & Venture Capital), WTC research grants, NIH Phase 1 and 2 SBIR grants

4. University Resources • Applied Physics Laboratory • Department of Neurological Surgery • Schools of Dentistry and of Public Health • Office of Technology Transfer • Washington Technology Center (WTC) • Washington Research Foundation (WRF Capital)

5. Intellectual Property • Get a good patent attorney • Extensive review of 500 patents before started • Patent filed November 2003 (published May 05) • Additional patents filed in 2006

6. Building a Team • Start with Technical Types • Build & prove out technology • Need 1 Business / Marketing Type • Build vision of future, negotiations, legal work, fund raising • Start part time; eventually convert to full time

7. Business Plan • How big is the market • What is your reason for being i.e. competitive advantage • What is your anticipated market share • Projected pricing • Estimated spending by year • Planned exit (Sale, IPO) • Capital requirements by year • Fund raising strategy

8. Funding Sources • Need a strategy • Founders • Washington Technology Center (WTC) • National Institutes of Health (NIH) • Angels • Venture Capital

9. Research Process

10. Internal Testing: what are the primary benefits? Concept Testing: does the concept deliver a benefit? Evolution of Research 2004-2006 2006-2007 2005-2006 2003-2004 External Testing: independent confirmation of safety & effectiveness Optimize Parameters: what is the optimal technology design? Univ. of Wash. & Ultreo NIH SBIR Phase I Grant Ultreo, Inc. & Universities NIH SBIR Phase II Grant University of Washington WTC Grants Ultreo, Inc. NIH SBIR Phase II Grant

11. pierre’s turn

12. some details of the research • What is old, and how and what old does • What is new, and how and what new does • More of what new does • Summary statement of some partnering lessons I’ve learned

13. manual brushes • manual brushes move several times per second and clean only at the point of bristle contact

14. power brushes • power brushes move their bristles several hundred times per second and clean primarily at the point of bristle contact, in a manner vastly more efficient than manual brushes.

15. power brushes • However, even the best power brushes still leave behind significant amounts of plaque in your mouth, much of it in areas where the bristles don’t contact. www.studentbmj.com/issues/00/10/education/369.php

16. Therefore, the world needs an even better toothbrush.

17. here it is.

18. what is special about the Ultreo • we’ve added optimally configured and delivered ultrasound to a power toothbrush foundation.

19. what is special about the Ultreo • the Ultreo’s bristles scrub on time scales similar to that of other power toothbrushes - hundreds of times a second. Thanks to the ultrasound-activated bubbles, the Ultreo also removes plaque bacteria where the ultrasound and dental slurry intersect, including where the bristles may not reach.

20. a sense of gentleness

21. some of our earliest prototypes

22. we’ve come a long way vs • a testimony to the initial vision, the initially applied resources and alacrity of SAP/APL/Neurosurgery/Pediatric Dentistry/Periodontology/Public Health, and the subsequent and considerable effort and expertise utilized at Ultreo, along with continuing efforts of UW.

23. so, does it work?

24. ultrasound from a stationary brush rapidly removes a ‘line’ of plaque bacteria. • Artificial teeth with bacteria dyed pink before (left) and after (right) application of ultrasound without bristle contact. Discrete bacteria colonies along a band stretching from lower left to upper right were removed by the ultrasound activated bubbles, in a shape corresponding to the shape of ultrasound emitted from the face of the stationary brush head.

25. plaque bacteria removal via combined sonic & ultrasound processes • Artificial teeth with bacteria dyed pink before (left) and after (right) treatment with a sonically vibrating brush head that emitted ultrasound in the presence of sonically produced bubbles, 2-3 mm from the artificial teeth. Discrete bacteria colonies were reduced or removed across the entire tooth surface after only 5 seconds of application of the prototype.

26. sonic & ultrasound versus sonic only • Artificial teeth with bacteria dyed pink before (above) and after (below) treatment with (AA’) a sonically vibrating brush head that emitted ultrasound in the presence of sonically produced bubbles or (BB’) a popular power toothbrush, each acting 2-3 mm from the artificial teeth. Bacteria were removed across the entire tooth surface after only 5 seconds of application of the prototype.

27. So, does it work? yes!

28. partnership lessons • assuming sufficient technical skills, it is the character of the people with whom you work that matters the most. • start your research with the clinical problem in mind. • be open to new perspectives and to new knowledge. • appreciate the opportunities afforded by serendipity and be willing to act, quickly!, in response to those opportunities. • surround yourself with (interdisciplinary) people who sufficiently interact and are open to the fruits of those interactions. • make sure your environment facilitates and nurtures those interactions.

29. Questions?