Creating a spin-off is one of the most powerful ways to turn scientific research into real-world impact. But it’s also one of the most complex. From navigating intellectual property rights to assembling the right team and choosing between licensing or launching a startup, every decision can shape the future of a technology.
In this third installment of our Innovation Talks series, we speak with Eladio Crego, a seasoned financier and expert in technology transfer, venture capital, and early-stage business development. With decades of hands-on experience supporting research-based spin-offs—from structuring deals to guiding companies through their first critical years—Eladio shares practical, unfiltered insights on what it really takes to move from lab to market.
Whether you’re a researcher, tech transfer officer, or investor, this conversation offers valuable lessons on equity, IP strategy, investor expectations, and the common pitfalls that can derail even the most promising projects.
For a global outlook on technology transpher and the top innovative spin-offs to follow this year, don’t miss our free report “Top Spin-Offs to Watch in 2025”.
Professional career
Linknovate: Thanks for meeting with us Eladio. To start, how would you define yourself professionally?
Eladio: I consider myself a financier, although I have a fairly extensive background in the technology field. I began my career in venture capital, focusing primarily on investments in university spin-offs, through initiatives such as Unirisco and Uninvest. Later, I transitioned to working as an independent consultant through my own company, and I’ve also served as a finance manager for various technology companies—mainly in their early stages, when they need to structure operations, finalize transfer agreements, and enter the market.
A representative example is Ipronics, a spin-off from the Polytechnic University of Valencia, where I remain involved as a partner. I typically support these companies through their third, fourth, or fifth year—at which point, due to their growth and increasing complexity, it becomes necessary to bring in a full-time professional.
In addition, I act as a business angel and invest in some of the companies I work with. I also collaborate with public entities, such as the Galician Innovation Agency (GAIN), particularly through the Ignicia program, a proof-of-concept initiative. This involvement builds on my previous work with the Barrié Foundation, where we helped design its technology valorization program—the methodology of which was later adopted by GAIN.
Assessment of technological maturity
L: How do you assess whether a technology is mature enough to build a spin-off around it? Do you use TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels)? What market or team signals do you consider key?
E: It’s generally said—and it’s true—that the closer a technology is to market (i.e., TRL 9), the better. However, in practice, especially in Deep Tech and academia, it’s rare to find technologies already at TRL 9.
The appropriate TRL also depends heavily on the sector. In the pharmaceutical industry, for example, spin-offs are often created during preclinical phases (TRL 4 or 5), with the goal of reaching clinical trials and attracting industry interest—without necessarily commercializing the product themselves.
In many cases, the creation of a spin-off isn’t the result of reaching a high TRL, but rather a strategy to continue developing and maturing the technology. Academic institutions often lack the resources to advance technologies beyond a certain point.
In the Ignicia program—an initiative by the GAIN agency that offers milestone-based funding to support the maturation of commercially promising technologies—a minimum TRL of 4 or 5 is required to be considered for valorization. That can serve as a good benchmark: if a technology has reached TRL 4 or 5, you can begin building on a solid foundation.
License vs. Spin-off
L: How do you decide whether a technology should be licensed or a spin-off? What factors do you consider?
E: The decision depends on several factors: the nature of the technology, the structure and commitment of the development team, the presence of a clear market opportunity, and the type of validation the technology still requires. Some technologies are a natural fit for existing companies and can be effectively transferred through licensing. Others, however, need further development, a tailored go-to-market strategy, or a specific business model that doesn’t align well with established players. In those cases, creating a spin-off may be the best way to attract investment and push the project forward.
Common mistakes in creating spin-offs
L: What are the most common mistakes you see when launching a spin-off?
E: I would say the most common mistake is not being clear about the purpose of creating the spin-off. Sometimes, the sponsoring researchers view spin-offs merely as a tool for the research group to obtain funding or to provide positions for their staff.
Another frequent issue is the lack of project sharing, which is essential to attract external management profiles with business experience. Additionally, there’s often an excessive focus on the technology itself, when the real focus should be on the product or service that can be built on that technology. Technology is a means, not an end.
L: Does this have to do with the research mentality, which is more focused on technical progress than on the market?
E: Exactly. Researchers tend to be very attached to their technology (which is understandable), but that attachment can prevent them from clearly seeing what problem it solves or how it fits the market. The challenge is to shift focus: move away from thinking purely in terms of technological development and start thinking in terms of product, customer needs, and functionality.
Relationship with the research center
L: How can a healthy and productive relationship be maintained between a spin-off and its parent research center or organisation?
E: The key is recognizing that these are two distinct entities, often with different—and sometimes conflicting—goals. That’s why it’s essential to formalize agreements from the very beginning: clearly defining the researchers’ roles, whether they remain part of the academic institution, how they participate in the spin-off, and so on.
While a spin-off originates from a university or research center, it isn’t literally its “child.” It can evolve independently, incorporate technologies from other sources, and operate purely based on market demands. This independence needs to be acknowledged and embraced from the outset.
Institutional Equity
L: What percentage of equity do academic institutions typically retain in a spin-off? Are there any standards?
E: There’s no clear legislation or single standard. For example, some universities in the United Kingdom have historically retained high equity percentages. In Spain, policies vary widely—even among universities within the same autonomous community.
My recommendation is that institutions avoid aiming for large equity stakes. Usually, 10% or less is reasonable. But I want to emphasize: there’s no uniform criterion. Some institutions base their share on formulas involving the number of patents or inventors; others use fixed percentages around 10%, and some don’t even have a defined policy at all.
Intellectual Property Management
L: How is intellectual property typically structured in a spin-off? What common issues arise?
E: Typically, the underlying technology is licensed from the university, but tensions often emerge around future developments. Institutions usually want any new knowledge created by the same researchers to remain university property, while companies aim to own the IP they generate themselves.
In the early years, when the company still relies heavily on the research group’s know-how, it can make sense for the resulting IP to stay with the university. However, as the company grows, builds its own team, and funds further development, it’s logical for these new assets to belong to the company.
More mature universities now include specific clauses in their license agreements addressing future improvements and developments, which helps prevent disputes down the line.
Spin-Offs Team Structure
L: How do you recommend structuring a spin-off team?
E: Successful spin-offs tend to be those in which the senior researcher remains at the university and acts as an advisor. Meanwhile, a younger researcher with deep technical knowledge typically takes on key roles like CTO or CSO within the company.
The CEO and other key management profiles should be hired externally and have industry experience. Furthermore, it’s important that these profiles have significant equity stakes to ensure their commitment to the company is genuine. If managers have only a marginal stake, investors will view them more as employees than founders.
Investor Expectations
L: What do investors (VCs) look for when evaluating a spin-off from a research center? How does it differ from a traditional startup?
E: For experienced investors, there really aren’t major differences. The essentials remain the same: a solid technological foundation for developing unique products or services, a competent team, a clear market strategy, and a well-structured organization.
The challenge comes when an investor encounters a spin-off for the first time—they might be taken aback by licensing agreements, institutional involvement, or complex governance structures. But investors familiar with spin-offs assess them like any other technology company. What truly matters is that the founding team has strong executive capabilities and is aligned with the business goals.
Real Cases
L: Can you share a case where technology transfer was particularly well managed?
E: A clear example is Ipronics, a spin-off from the Polytechnic University of Valencia specializing in integrated photonics. It recently closed an investment round with participation from both U.S. and European funds, including Amadeus, Bosch, Triatomic, and FSB. I served as its CEO for a time and later as CFO. The company has received support from major programs like EIC Transition, EIC Accelerator, and IPCEI, and it’s currently developing a cutting-edge product in its field.
L: And any cases where poor management has been a hindrance?
E: Yes. Years ago, we evaluated a very promising spin-off, but discovered that the technology had been co-developed by a university and a technology center—yet the technology center wasn’t included in the transfer agreement. This represented a serious legal risk. They eventually resolved it, but if we, as investors, hadn’t identified the issue early, it could have become a major problem later—especially once the company began generating revenue or closing important deals. It’s a clear example of why rigorous due diligence is critical from the very beginning.
Conditions for Success
L: From your experience, what conditions are necessary for a scientific innovation to actually reach the market?
E: The valorization process is key. It’s not enough to have a strong scientific result, it needs to be transformed into a transferable asset. That means understanding what a potential licensee or investor is looking for, identifying the validations the technology still requires, ensuring it’s properly protected, and developing a clear strategy to approach the market.
It’s also essential to reduce the perceived risk for investors or potential buyers. Technology isn’t just about the technical side—regulatory factors, team composition, intellectual property, and even branding all play a role. Only by addressing all these elements can you build a comprehensive and compelling value proposition.
Innovations of the Future
L: What technologies or innovations do you think will have an impact in the future?
E: I’ve seen many technologies emerge that once promised to change the world, free us from work, and have a huge impact, but they haven’t yet lived up to expectations. Some even excited me so much that I invested in them. We saw graphene, which was supposed to revolutionize everything, but it hasn’t yet reached its promised potential. Then came Big Data, also with enormous promises, but the actual transformative impact has been more limited than initially projected. Now we’re dealing with Artificial Intelligence, which many believe will change everything. There’s also talk of Quantum Intelligence, which will one day be disruptive… but for now, we haven’t seen any truly spectacular results.
Honestly, I’m not so caught up in the hype anymore. But if I had to single out an area with real potential, I’d say photonics. I’m involved in a few related projects and I see this technology maturing and having concrete, impactful applications. Unlike others, it’s not just a promise: it’s advancing, and I believe it can have a very significant impact in the short term.
