Refining the database

The refining of the raw data obtained from a range of independent sources through extensive analysis of historic financial performance data is a key feature of this study. Previous USO financial performance studies have rarely used independent sources or made detailed attempts to construct a ‘narrative’ for a company over a long period of time based on analysis of its

89 historic financial data, backed up by other sources, to decide whether it is a true USO based on the selected definition.

As a result of the refining process, a number of potential USOs were rejected from the final database for a variety of reasons, which may be summarised by the following categories:

i) Companies where the University held an equity stake, but which had been set up by the University for some specific administrative purpose such as management of property rather than transferring and commercialising intellectual property.

ii) Companies which were described by one or more of the sources as a USO but where detailed financial analysis revealed that the University had never held an equity stake.

It is possible that some of these companies do meet one of the alternative HEFCE definitions of a USO, such as those companies that were set up by former or current University staff or students, and were assumed or adjudged to be USOs by the creator of the data source, but the extent of university involvement is not recorded in the public domain.

iii) Companies where the University appeared to have acquired a small equity stake some time after its formation but where it did not appear to be the primary source of the company’s intellectual property. Clearly a judgment had to be made in removing this kind of company from the database, but the evidence was generally fairly clear cut including cases where the company was clearly a USO associated with another University.

Companies identified as potential USOs by one or more of the sources, but which were rejected from the final data set upon further analysis, are shown in Table 5.2 together with the reasons for rejection.

Refining the data in this way gave a final total population of 29 USOs incorporated between 1987 and 2011. 2001 and 2002 were the most popular years with 4 USOs being incorporated in each, which may be linked to the introduction of UCFs in the UK to encourage USO formation, and at least one USO was formed each year by the UoB between 2000 and 2011 (Graph 5.1). No USOs were formed at all between 1987 and 1997 highlighting the fact that the USO

phenomenon is a relatively new one. In addition, no USOs were formed after 2011, which could imply that this route is losing attractiveness as a means of commercialising university

technology. The pattern of formation of USOs is discussed in more depth in Chapter 7 along with the results from other USOs in the region.

Company name Reason for rejection as USO

PsiOxus Therapeutics Limited Hybrid Systems Limited, a UoB USO, was acquired by Myotec Therapeutics Limited, an Imperial College USO via a share for share exchange in 2010 to form PsiOxus. UoB has a small stake in the new company but no management input. The new company is still in the development phase so any realisation of its shareholding is unlikely at present.

90 Cytox Limited An Oxford University USO; one of the academic founders

moved to a post at UoB which has a very small equity stake in the company, probably as a result of some technology transfer or licensing agreement. Company is based in Oxford.

Circassia Limited Originally an Oxford/Imperial USO, the company acquired the proprietary technology to ToleroTrans, an organ transplant anti-rejection technology from UoB in 2007 for which it received a small equity stake

Inanovate Limited UoB holds no shares Cambridge Mechatronics

Limited

UoB holds a tiny equity stake, again most likely from a licensing of technology in the past. Company appears likely to cease trading in the near future meaning the equity stake has no value

Crimson Technologies Limited UoB holds no shares

Health Integration Limited Company cannot be found in Experian Corpfin RB Scientific Solutions Limited Company dormant until dissolved; UoB had no

shareholding Stemtrax Limited UoB holds no shares

Astron Clinica Limited UoB held an equity stake from 2005 although company was founded in Cambridge in 1998, most likely from a licensing of technology. Company has been dissolved.

The Binding Site Limited UoB holds no shares. The Binding Site was formed in the 1970s by researchers within the Medical School of UoB to develop innovative ways of producing antibodies, but were unable to secure government funding so set up a private company. This is a classic situation that supporters of USOs wish to avoid occurring whereby university-generated IP did not generate a commercial return for the university.

Cobra Biomanufacturing Limited

UoB only had small equity stake taken in 2006; company now dissolved

Intrec Limited Company was a training consortium and not a USO Practice Management Services

Limited

UoB only ever held less than a 1% equity stake and company was dissolved in 2011

Table 5.2 Rationale for rejection of UoB companies as USOs

91 Figure 5.1: UoB USOs, total population, number by year