David Postolski (Moderator)
Welcome to the Entrepreneurial Strategy Series. Today’s conversation focuses on the life science startup journey,
TL;DL (Too Listen; Didn’t Listen)
I’m David Postolski, an intellectual property and patent attorney with a background in chemistry and computer science. I’ve spent over two decades working with startups, and today’s conversation focuses on the life science startup journey, which is uniquely challenging compared to other types of companies.
Life science founders face long research timelines, high costs, regulatory complexity, and capital-intensive development. To explore this honestly, we invited three founders to share real experiences—successes, failures, and lessons learned from building biotech companies.
I’m Matt Silk, a food material scientist and co-founder of Paragon Pure, a life science ingredient company based in New Jersey. We started in 2019 and focus on developing functional food ingredients through precision sprouting.
Our company operates at the intersection of food science and biotechnology. While we’re still a small team, we work with large partners and focus on long commercialization timelines—something that’s very common in life science startups.
Tomas Licciardo (Biotechnics)
I’m Tomas Licciardo, CEO and co-founder of Biotechnics. We started in Argentina in 2020 and later expanded to the United States, where we now operate facilities in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Our company develops biodegradable, cost-effective green solvents that replace petrochemical ingredients used in industries like personal care, cosmetics, food, and agriculture. We’re currently transitioning from R&D into commercialization.
John van den Berg (Autobionics)
I’m John van den Berg, CEO of Autobionics, based in the Netherlands. We develop bioprinting technology that produces human skin for research and future therapeutic applications.
Our company was founded in 2021 and combines academic research with commercial execution. We completed our first bioprinter in 2024 and are now moving toward product launch.
Intellectual Property Strategy in Biotech
Intellectual property is central to life science companies. How do each of you think about IP?
Our core innovation is a new methodology, so patents are essential. While trade secrets can work in some industries, biotechnology is easily reverse-engineered. Patents allow us to protect the platform and future applications of the technology.
Patents in life sciences serve two purposes. First, they protect innovation over long commercialization timelines. Second, they act as communication tools—investors and corporate partners read patents closely when evaluating credibility.
IP is not just protection; it’s also a competitive barrier. Investors expect to see a clear IP strategy. We combine patents with trade secrets so we don’t reveal everything while still building credibility.
Where Life Science Founders Begin
Where does the life science startup journey actually begin?
It starts with belief and alignment. I met my co-founders through a biotech company builder. They had spent over a decade developing the technology. Once I saw it could solve real problems and reach the market, the startup made sense.
Early on, we focused on defining what was worth patenting and building a long-term IP roadmap rather than filing a single patent.
Founders need deep domain knowledge before building a company. Reading prior patents and understanding existing solutions is critical. Accelerators helped push us from idea to execution by validating the concept.
Our company started with conversations. We talked to industry stakeholders to understand unmet needs. The founding team combined business and academic expertise, which is essential in life sciences.
Funding the Life Science Startup
Life science startups are expensive. How did you fund your companies?
We started with personal funds and non-dilutive funding like grants. Grants allowed us to build real systems without giving up equity. Once the technology was tangible, fundraising became easier.
We used personal funds, then secured grants and corporate partnerships. Non-dilutive funding allowed us to pay salaries and stay operational. Corporate collaborations also helped validate our product.
Our path was different. Grant access was limited due to geography and citizenship rules. We raised early capital from a company builder in exchange for equity and made significant personal sacrifices.
We held over 100 investor meetings before raising our seed round. Rejection is part of biotech fundraising, and persistence is essential.
Accelerators and Incubators
Are accelerators necessary for biotech startups?
Accelerators are valuable for networking and credibility, especially programs like IndieBio. But founders need clear goals. Pitching alone doesn’t build a company.
Accelerators help with positioning and storytelling, but founders must balance pitching with execution.
We chose not to join accelerators. Many opportunities look attractive but distract from building the product. Free money always has a cost.
Mistakes and Lessons Learned
What mistakes did you make?
We hired the wrong people, underestimated costs, and made decisions that didn’t scale. Mistakes are inevitable. The key is fixing them quickly.
Partial pivots slow progress. When you pivot, commit fully.
Our biggest mistakes involved focus. Serving too many industries at once stretched our resources. Focus and timing matter more than ambition.
Where the Companies Are Now
We are commercializing multiple products, closing long-term deals, and expanding manufacturing capacity.
We’re in the “valley of death” between pre-seed and seed, but we have paying customers and working systems.
We’re preparing for a seed extension while continuing to refine our ingredient and scale partnerships.
Final Reflections on the Life Science Journey
Looking back, how do you feel about the life science startup journey?
I would do it again. The biggest adjustment would be managing expectations around timing.
It’s challenging but rewarding. We’re solving meaningful problems.
I’d absolutely do it again. You need optimism, adaptability, and resilience.
