Founder Resources

Getting Started

The transition from academic scientist to company founder is rarely a single moment of decision. It is a gradual process of recognizing that your research has commercial potential and that a startup — not a grant cycle — may be the fastest path to patient impact. The question is not whether your science is “ready” in some abstract sense, but whether the core conditions for company formation are beginning to align.

Three milestones signal that it is worth having the conversation. First, you have reproducible data that supports a novel mechanism, target, or platform — ideally validated across multiple experimental conditions or models. Second, you have a credible intellectual property position, whether through filed patents, patentable discoveries, or trade secrets that give you a defensible head start. Third, you have the nucleus of a founding team — even if that means just one or two trusted collaborators who share your conviction and complement your skill set.

One of the earliest strategic decisions is whether to license your university's IP into a startup or pursue a licensing deal with an established company. Licensing to a pharma partner is lower risk and lower effort, but it also means relinquishing control over development timelines, indications, and pricing. Forming a company gives you the ability to drive the science forward on your terms, attract capital specifically for your program, and retain meaningful equity — but it demands a fundamentally different commitment of your time and energy.

• Timeline expectation: From first conversation with a VC to closing a pre-seed round, expect 3–9 months. Company incorporation, IP licensing, and initial fundraising often happen in parallel, not sequentially.
• You do not need a business plan: At the earliest stage, investors care about the science, the team, and the IP. A clear research narrative and honest assessment of risks matters more than financial projections.
• Start the TTO conversation early: Your university's technology transfer office controls the IP. Engage them before you begin fundraising so you understand the licensing terms, timeline, and any institutional requirements.
• Consider your personal runway: Many scientist-founders maintain their academic position during the earliest phase. Understand your institution's conflict-of-interest policies and plan accordingly.

Pitch Materials

A pitch deck for a life sciences startup is not a grant application, and it is not a TED talk. It is a structured narrative that helps an investor understand your science, your market, and why now is the right moment to build a company around your work. The best decks are concise — 12 to 15 slides — and prioritize clarity over comprehensiveness. You are not trying to explain every experiment; you are trying to create conviction that your approach is differentiated, your data is real, and your team can execute.

Life sciences investors evaluate decks differently than tech VCs. They will spend the most time on your scientific data, your mechanism of action, and your IP position. They care less about total addressable market calculations (which are often speculative at the pre-seed stage) and more about the clinical unmet need your science addresses and the biological rationale for why your approach should work.

A strong deck typically follows this structure:

• Problem: The clinical unmet need. What disease or condition are you targeting, how many patients are affected, and why do current treatments fall short?
• Science & mechanism: Your core insight. What is the biological mechanism, and what is your evidence that modulating it will produce a therapeutic effect? Include key data figures — but curate them ruthlessly. Show your two or three strongest results, not every experiment you have run.
• Platform or product: What are you building? A single therapeutic, a platform with multiple programs, a diagnostic, a device? Be specific about your lead program and honest about what is proven versus what is hypothesized.
• Market & competitive landscape: Who else is working on this problem, and what makes your approach different? VCs respect founders who understand the competitive landscape and can articulate their differentiation clearly.
• Team: Who are the founders, and why are you the right people to build this company? Highlight relevant scientific expertise, clinical network, and any advisors who add credibility.
• The ask: How much capital are you raising, what milestones will it fund, and what will those milestones enable (typically a Series A raise or a key inflection point)?

The most common mistakes scientist-founders make in their pitch: burying the clinical relevance under layers of mechanistic detail, presenting data without context for what it means, underestimating competitors or claiming there are none, and failing to articulate what the investment will actually accomplish. Remember that your audience is evaluating dozens of opportunities. Lead with what matters most and make every slide earn its place.

Legal & IP

Intellectual property is the foundation of nearly every life sciences startup. Unlike software companies, where speed and network effects create defensibility, biotech companies are built on patents, data exclusivity, and trade secrets. Getting your IP strategy right from the beginning is not optional — it is existential. Investors will scrutinize your IP position in the first or second meeting, and gaps here can derail a fundraise entirely.

If your research was conducted at a university, the institution almost certainly owns the intellectual property under the Bayh-Dole Act. This means you will need to negotiate an exclusive license from the university's technology transfer office (TTO) before you can build a company around the science. License terms vary widely but typically include an upfront fee, annual maintenance payments, milestone-based payments tied to development progress, and a royalty on future product sales (often 1–5%). Some TTOs also take an equity stake in the company, typically 1–5%.

• Provisional vs. utility patents: A provisional patent application establishes a priority date and gives you 12 months to file a full utility application. It is faster and cheaper but does not itself become a granted patent. Many university TTOs file provisionals first, then decide whether to pursue the full application based on commercial interest. As a founder, understand where your IP stands in this timeline.
• Freedom to operate (FTO): Even if you have strong patents on your own technology, you may be building on foundational IP owned by others. An FTO analysis identifies third-party patents that could block your development path. Conduct this early — it is far better to discover a blocking patent before you raise capital than after.
• Founding team equity: Equity splits among co-founders should reflect expected contribution going forward, not past academic contribution. A common mistake is splitting equity equally among all named inventors on a patent, regardless of who will actually build the company. Use four-year vesting with a one-year cliff to protect all parties.
• Entity type: If you plan to raise venture capital, incorporate as a Delaware C-Corporation. This is the standard structure that VCs expect, and it provides the flexibility needed for preferred stock issuance, option pools, and future financing rounds. LLCs and S-Corps create complications that will slow you down.
• Public disclosure risk: Under U.S. patent law, you have a one-year grace period after public disclosure to file a patent application. In most other jurisdictions, any disclosure before filing destroys patentability entirely. Coordinate publication and conference timelines with your patent strategy.

Regulatory Pathway

Regulatory strategy is not something you figure out after you have a product. It is a core part of your company's identity from day one, and sophisticated investors will evaluate your understanding of the regulatory landscape as a proxy for operational maturity. The FDA pathway you pursue determines your development timeline, your capital requirements, and ultimately your competitive position. Getting it right is a strategic advantage; getting it wrong can cost years and tens of millions of dollars.

The pathway depends on what you are building. The major FDA frameworks break down as follows:

• 510(k) clearance (devices): For medical devices that are substantially equivalent to an already-marketed device. This is the fastest path to market for devices — typically 3–12 months for the review itself, though total development time varies. You must demonstrate that your device is as safe and effective as the predicate device, usually through bench testing and sometimes clinical data.
• PMA — Premarket Approval (devices): Required for high-risk devices (Class III) that have no predicate. PMA requires clinical trial data demonstrating safety and effectiveness. The review process alone takes 6–12 months, and the clinical trial preceding it can take years. This is a significantly more capital-intensive path.
• IND/NDA pathway (small molecule drugs): The Investigational New Drug (IND) application allows you to begin clinical trials in humans. Before filing an IND, you need preclinical pharmacology, toxicology, and manufacturing data. After successful clinical trials (Phase I, II, III), you submit a New Drug Application (NDA) for approval. Total timeline from IND to approval: typically 6–12 years.
• BLA — Biologics License Application (biologics): The equivalent of the NDA for biological products such as monoclonal antibodies, cell therapies, and gene therapies. The clinical development framework is similar, but manufacturing requirements are more complex due to the nature of biological products. Expect longer timelines for CMC (chemistry, manufacturing, and controls) development.

Regardless of pathway, consider requesting a pre-submission meeting (pre-sub for devices, pre-IND for drugs) with the FDA before you invest heavily in development. These meetings are free, and the FDA will provide written feedback on your proposed development plan, endpoints, and study design. This feedback is invaluable — it reduces the risk of costly mid-course corrections and gives investors confidence that your regulatory strategy has been vetted by the agency.

Timeline expectations vary dramatically by modality. A diagnostic or digital health product may reach market in 2–4 years. A 510(k) device might take 3–5 years from concept to clearance. A small molecule therapeutic typically requires 10–15 years from discovery to approval. Cell and gene therapies fall somewhere in between, with accelerated pathways available for serious or life-threatening conditions. Understanding where your product sits on this spectrum is essential for fundraising — it determines how much capital you need to raise, how many rounds that will require, and which investors are the right fit.

Fundraising Playbook

Fundraising in biotech follows a different rhythm than in software. The stages are defined not by revenue milestones but by scientific and regulatory milestones, and the capital requirements at each stage reflect the cost of generating the data investors need to see. Understanding what each stage funds — and what it is supposed to prove — is the single most important framework for planning your fundraise.

• Pre-seed ($250K–$2M): Funds company formation, IP licensing, initial team building, and early proof-of-concept experiments. At this stage, the investor is betting on the founder and the science. You are trying to demonstrate that the biological hypothesis is worth pursuing in a company context. This is where Legacy invests most frequently.
• Seed ($2M–$5M): Funds the work needed to reach a key inflection point — such as proof of concept in animal models, IND-enabling studies, platform validation, or a 510(k) submission for a device. The goal is to generate the data package that will support a Series A raise at a meaningfully higher valuation.
• Series A ($10M–$50M+ in biotech): Funds clinical development. For therapeutics, this typically means IND filing and Phase I (and sometimes Phase II) clinical trials. For devices, it might fund clinical studies and market launch. Series A investors are institutional life sciences funds that specialize in clinical-stage risk. They will conduct deep scientific and regulatory diligence.

Building a target investor list is a research exercise in itself. Not all VCs invest in life sciences, and not all life sciences VCs invest at the stage or in the modality that matches your company. Start by identifying firms that have invested in companies similar to yours — same therapeutic area, same stage, same modality. Look at their recent portfolio companies, read their blog posts and investment theses, and identify the specific partner at the firm whose background aligns with your science. A warm introduction through a mutual contact, your TTO, or an advisor is always preferable to a cold email, but a well-crafted cold outreach that demonstrates genuine knowledge of the firm's thesis can also open doors.

Prepare for due diligence before you start fundraising. Investors will ask for your raw data, your patent filings, your cap table, your TTO license agreement, any material contracts, and references from scientific collaborators. Having these materials organized and ready to share signals professionalism and accelerates the process. Conversely, scrambling to pull together basic documents mid-process is one of the most common reasons fundraises stall.

• Term sheet basics: A term sheet specifies the investment amount, pre-money valuation, type of security (equity, SAFE, or convertible note), board composition, protective provisions, and pro-rata rights. At the pre-seed and seed stage, SAFEs with a valuation cap are the most common instrument. At Series A and beyond, priced equity rounds with preferred stock are standard. Always have legal counsel review a term sheet before you sign.
• Valuation context: Pre-seed life sciences companies typically raise at $5–15M post-money valuations. Seed rounds often fall in the $15–30M range. These numbers vary significantly by modality, data maturity, and competitive dynamics. Do not anchor on a specific number — focus on raising enough capital to reach the next milestone at terms that keep your cap table healthy for future rounds.
• The fundraising timeline: Plan for 3–6 months from first meeting to close, though it can take longer. Run a structured process: build your target list, secure introductions, hold initial meetings over 4–6 weeks, enter diligence with your top prospects, and aim to create competitive dynamics by progressing multiple conversations in parallel.

The best fundraises are not about selling — they are about finding the right partner for the next chapter of your science. Choose investors who understand your field, respect your timeline, and will be in your corner when the inevitable challenges arise.

Ready to explore what comes after the lab? We'd love to hear about your science.