Paul Philips
[FOI #22380 email]
1 December 2009
Our Ref: FOI 2009/188 – F0077131
Dear Mr Philips,
Re: Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – Request for Information
Thank you for your email which was received by the University on 2 November 2009 timed
22:00 hours, requesting the following information:
In response to a previous enquiry regarding spin-out valuations
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/18453/response/51180/attach/html/2/RESPONSE%
20F0072089.pdf.html) it was stated that two of the companies with a base outwith Scotland,
Pathfinder LLC and Cara Therapeutics, were created and financed by US based groups, not
the University of Glasgow.
In relation to the US-based spin-out companies Pathfinder LLC and Cara Therapeutics:
1) Can you please provide information on whether the US-based groups financed the
research and development work that led to the creation of the companies?
2) If not, who funded the research work, e.g. other sources such as UK Research Councils?
3) Did the University incur any legal fees in the creation of these companies?
4) If so, how much and were these paid from University funds, or did the US-based companies
pay these too?
5) Why is the Scottish taxpayer funding the creation of companies that will never create jobs in
Scotland?
6) In the current economic climate, surely the taxpayers' money should be used to benefit
Scotland rather than wasting it on US-based spin-out companies?
DATA PROTECTION AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICE
Main Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ
Data Protection: Telephone: 0141-330-3111
E-Mail: [email address]
Freedom of Information: Telephone: 0141-330-2523
E-Mail: foi@gla.ac.uk
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
University’s Response
CARA Therapeutics
1)
Can you please provide information on whether the US-based groups financed the
research and development work that led to the creation of the companies?
CARA Therapeutics was formed, by its US-based founders, to commercialise Intellectual
Property (IP) from a number of sources including the University of Glasgow. The founders did
not fund the research and development work at the University that generated the Intellectual
Property that was licensed to the venture for equity.
2)
If not, who funded the research work, e.g. other sources such as UK Research
Councils?
The IP licensed to CARA by the University was created with funding from the Scottish
Enterprise Proof of Concept Fund.
3)
Did the University incur any legal fees in the creation of these companies
The University did not create CARA Therapeutics. Legal fees were incurred in reviewing the
agreements in relation to the licensing of the University’s technology for equity and a research
and development contract was established between the company and the University, which
allowed research staff to be hired at the University to support further development of the
University’s technology in Scotland.
4)
If so, how much and were these paid from University funds, or did the US-based
companies pay these too?
The legal fees referred to in response to question 3) were paid for by the University. These
costs were:
Review of Scots Law documents: £11,243.47
Review of US documents: £3,430.91
VAT £2,568.20
Total: £17,242.58
5)
Why is the Scottish taxpayer funding the creation of companies that will never create
jobs in Scotland?
The CARA Therapeutics company was not created by the University of Glasgow, rather the
company took a licence for equity at formation from the University.
6)
In the current economic climate, surely the taxpayers' money should be used to benefit
Scotland rather than wasting it on US-based spin-out companies?
The University of Glasgow does not hold the information that you have requested and is not
aware of any other public authority that could respond to your request. Section 17 of FOISA
states that where public authorities receive requests for information that they do not hold, they
must issue a notice advising that they do not hold the requested information.
Pathfinder LLC
1)
Can you please provide information on whether the US-based groups financed the
research and development work that led to the creation of the companies?
Pathfinder LLC was formed by its US-based founders. The founders did not fund the research
and development that generated the Intellectual Property, subsequently licensed to the
company.
2)
If not, who funded the research work, e.g. other sources such as UK Research
Councils?
The Intellectual Property licensed to Pathfinder by the University was created with funding
initially from the Darlinda Renal Research Charity and subsequently the Scottish Enterprise
Proof of Concept Fund.
3)
Did the University incur any legal fees in the creation of these companies
Legal fees were incurred in reviewing the agreements in relation to licensing the University’s
technology for a sign-on fee, equity, a royalty return, and a research and development
contract was established between the company and the University, which allowed research
staff to be hired at the University to support further development of the University’s technology
in Scotland.
4)
If so, how much and were these paid from University funds, or did the US-based
companies pay these too?
The legal fees referred to in response to question 3) were paid for by the University. These
were offset from the licence sign-on fee paid by Pathfinder. The costs involved were:
Review of Scots Law documents: £17,941.50 plus disbursements (£63.71) plus VAT
(£2,843.63).
Review of US documents: £8,756 plus VAT (£1,313.40)
Total: £30,918.24
5)
Why is the Scottish taxpayer funding the creation of companies that will never create
jobs in Scotland?
Pathfinder LLC was not created by the University of Glasgow, rather the company took a
licence for access to University Intellectual Property.
6)
In the current economic climate, surely the taxpayers' money should be used to benefit
Scotland rather than wasting it on US-based spin-out companies?
The University of Glasgow does not hold the information that you have requested and is not
aware of any other public authority that could respond to your request. Section 17 of FOISA
states that where public authorities receive requests for information that they do not hold, they
must issue a notice advising that they do not hold the requested information.
The supply of documents under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
does not give the applicant or whoever receives the information any right to re-use it in such a
way that might infringe the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (for example, by making
multiple copies, publishing or otherwise distributing the information to other individuals and the
public). The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Modifications) Order
2004 ensured that Section 50 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”)
applies to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA”).
Breach of copyright law is an actionable offence and the University expressly reserves its
rights and remedies available to it pursuant to the CDPA and common law. Further information
on copyright is available at the following website:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm
Your right to seek a review
Should you be dissatisfied with the way in which the University has dealt with your request,
you have the right to require us to review our actions and decisions. Please refer to the
Review Procedure (http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/dpfoioffice/policiesandprocedures/foisa-
complaintsandreview/) for further information. All complaints regarding requests for
information will be handled in accordance with this procedure.
Yours sincerely,
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Office
